This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

16500

Vol. 62, No. 66

Monday, April 7, 1997

1 16 CFR 432.1.

2 Id. at 432.2. The required disclosures relate to:

Minimum sine wave continuous average power

output; load impedance in Ohms; rated power band

or frequency response; and rated percentage of

maximum total harmonic distortion.

3 Id.

4 Id. at 432.3.

5 Id. at 432.5.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 432

Request for Comments Concerning

Rule Relating To Power Output Claims

for Amplifiers Utilized in Home

Entertainment Products

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) is

requesting public comments on its Rule

relating to Power Output claims for

Amplifiers Utilized in Home

Entertainment Products (‘‘Amplifier

Rule’’ or ‘‘Rule’’). The Commission, as a

part of its systematic review of all

current Commission regulations and

guides, is requesting comments about

the overall costs and benefits of the Rule

and its overall regulatory and economic

impact. The Commission further seeks

information about whether certain

requirements of the Rule should be

modified in light of technological and

other changed circumstances. Lastly, the

Commission requests information about

issues involving amplified sound

systems such as powered speakers for

home computers and other home sound

systems and sound amplifiers utilized

in automobile entertainment products.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until June 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth and

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. Comments about the

Amplifier Rule should be identified ‘‘16

CFR Part 432—Comments.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert E. Easton, Esq., Special Assistant,

Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, (202) 326–3029 or

Dennis Murphy, Economist, Division of

Consumer Protection, Bureau of

Economics, Federal Trade Commission,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission has determined, as part of

its oversight responsibilities, to review

its rules and guides periodically. These

reviews seek information about the costs

and benefits of the Commission’s rules

and guides and their regulatory and

economic impact. The reviews also seek

information on whether technological

developments impact upon the rules.

The information obtained assists the

Commission in identifying rules and

guides that warrant modification or

rescission.

A. Background

The Amplifier Rule was promulgated

on May 3, 1974 (39 FR 15387), to assist

consumers in purchasing power

amplification equipment for home

entertainment purposes by

standardizing the measurement and

disclosure of various performance

characteristics of the equipment. Prior

to the Rule, sellers were making power,

distortion and other performance claims

based on many different technical test

procedures, or on no recognized test

procedures. The Rule establishes

uniform test standards and disclosures

so that consumers can make more

meaningful comparisons of performance

attributes.

The products within the scope of the

Rule are defined as:

Sound power amplification equipment

manufactured or sold for home entertainment

purposes, such as for example, radios, record

and tape players, radio-phonograph and/or

tape combinations, component audio

amplifiers and the like.1

The Rule makes it an unfair method

of competition and an unfair or

deceptive act or practice for

manufacturers and sellers of sound

power amplification equipment for

home entertainment purposes to fail to

disclose certain performance

information in connection with direct or

indirect representations of power

output, power band, frequency or

distortion characteristics.2

These disclosures must be made

clearly, conspicuously and more

prominently than any other

representation or disclosures.3 The Rule

also sets out standard test conditions for

performing the measurements that

support the required performance

disclosures.4 Further, the Rule prohibits

representations of performance

characteristics if they are not obtainable

when the equipment is operated by the

consumer in the usual and ordinary

manner without the use of extraneous

aids,5 e.g., cooling fans.

When the Rule was promulgated in

1974, there were very few self-amplified

(powered) speakers for use with home

computers or home entertainment

systems or external amplifiers for home

computers used for home entertainment

purposes. In 1997, however, there are

numerous and sophisticated systems of

this nature. The Commission has

tentatively determined that while such

systems are not specifically mentioned

in the Rule, such amplified (powered)

speakers and other similar sound

amplification equipment when used for

home entertainment purposes are

within the scope and purpose of the

Rule. The Commission has further

tentatively determined that such

equipment falls within the definition

used in the Rule and is sufficiently

similar to the examples given in the

Rule as to alert manufacturers and

sellers of the coverage. The

Commission, however, seeks additional

information concerning its tentative

determinations, and addresses several

questions below to these issues.

In 1974, amplified sound systems for

automotive use were also in the

formative stages of development. By

1997, such automotive amplified sound

systems achieved a stage of technical

sophistication on a par with many home

entertainment sound amplification

systems. Advertising for automotive

sound amplification systems in recent

years has often referred to the claimed

power output (in watts) of the system

using a variety of terms, including

‘‘Peak Power,’’ ‘‘Total Power,’’ and

‘‘RMS.’’ Because the Commission

wishes to learn whether the nonuniform disclosure of power output is

resulting in consumer deception,

confusion, and inability to make

informed decisions, the Commission

addresses several questions below to

this issue.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules 16501

B. Issues for Comment

At this time, the Commission solicits

written public comments on the

following questions:

(1) Is there a continuing need for the

Rule?

(a) What benefits has the Rule

provided to purchasers of the products

or services affected by the Rule?

(b) Has the Rule imposed costs on

purchasers?

(2) What changes, if any, should be

made to the Rule to increase the benefits

of the Rule to purchasers?

(a) How would these changes affect

the costs the Rule imposes on firms

subject to its requirements?

(3) What significant burdens or costs,

including costs of compliance, has the

Rule imposed on firms subject to its

requirements?

(a) Has the Rule provided benefits to

such firms?

(4) What changes, if any, should be

made to the Rule to reduce the burdens

or costs imposed on firms subject to its

requirements?

(a) How would these changes affect

the benefits provided by the Rule?

(5) Does the Rule overlap or conflict

with other federal, state, or local laws or

regulations?

(6) Since the Rule was issued, what

effects, if any, have changes in relevant

technology or economic conditions had

on the Rule?

(7) The following questions relate to

§ 432.3 of the Rule, which specifies

standard test conditions for measuring

continuous power:

(a) Are there other widely used

protocols for testing continuous power

that could provide a satisfactory

alternative to the § 432.2 requirements?

(b) Given the problems that

manufactures may experience with the

test specifications in § 432.3(c) requiring

that amplifiers be preconditioned for

one hour at one-third power, should

there be any modifications to § 432.3(c)?

(8) The Rule currently requires

disclosure of maximum harmonic

distortion, power bandwidth, and

impedance whenever a power claim is

made in any advertising, including

advertising by retail stores, direct mail

merchants, and manufacturers.

(a) Is there a continued need for the

Rule to require disclosure of maximum

rated harmonic distortion in media

advertising, or should such disclosure

be required only when maximum rated

harmonic distortion exceeds a specified

threshold level, such as one percent?

(b) Should certain types of

advertising, such as that commonly

used by retail stores to present

information on prices and basic features

for numerous models of amplification

equipment in a limited amount of print

space, be exempted from some or all of

the power bandwidth, distortion, and

impedance disclosures?

(c) If so, what developments have

occurred that make these disclosures no

longer necessary in such advertising?

(d) If so, which of these disclosures

should be exempted from such

advertising and why?

(e) Should any such exemptions be

extended to advertising by direct mail

resellers, who would not have retail

outlets where consumers could obtain

more detailed pre-purchase information

on amplifier specifications?

(9) The Rule currently governs power

output claims relating to ‘‘sound power

amplification equipment manufactured

or sold for home entertainment

purposes. . . .’’ The Commission has

tentatively concluded that the Rule

covers (A) self-powered speakers for use

with (i) home computers, (ii) home

sound systems, and (iii) home

multimedia systems; and (B) other

sound power amplification equipment

for home computers.

(a) Are there any reasons why power

output claims for such equipment

should be considered outside the scope

of the Rule? If so, please explain.

(b) Are manufacturers and distributors

of these products aware that these

products are, as the Commission has

tentatively determined, within the scope

of the Rule? If not, is there a need for

the Commission to undertake business

and consumer education efforts to

publicize the coverage?

(c) Are the standard test conditions

set out in the Rule appropriate for such

equipment?

(10) Current promotional materials

and labeling for self-powered speakers

and other sound amplification

equipment for home computers systems

contain power output claims expressed

in a variety of terms, including ‘‘Peak

Power,’’ ‘‘Peak Music Output Power,’’

‘‘Total Power,’’ and ‘‘RMS’’ power.

(a) What test protocols provide the

basis for each of these power

measurements?

(b) How do power ratings obtained

using these protocols compare with the

power rating that would be obtained

using the FTC continuous power output

protocol?

(c) Do power output claims in

promotional material and labeling for

such self-powered computer speakers

rely on measurement methods other

than those listed above?

(d) How do any such power claims

under (c) above compare with the

corresponding FTC power output

rating?

(11) The Rule governs sound

amplification equipment intended for

home entertainment purposes. Thus, the

Rule does not apply to automotive

sound amplification products. Current

promotional materials and labeling for

automotive sound amplification

equipment contain power output claims

expressed in a variety of terms,

including ‘‘Peak Power,’’ ‘‘Total Power,’’

and ‘‘RMS’’ power.

(a) What test protocols provide the

basis for each of these power

measurements?

(b) How do power ratings obtained

using these protocols compare with the

power rating that would be obtained

using the FTC continuous power output

protocol?

(c) Do power output claims in

promotional material and labeling for

automotive stereo equipment rely on

measurement methods other than those

listed above?

(d) How do any such power claims

under (c) above compare with the

corresponding FTC power output

rating?

(e) Do any of the sound power claims

being made in connection with the sale

and advertising of automotive sound

amplification products inhibit

meaningful comparisons of performance

attributes by consumers? If so, please: (i)

Identify any such claims and furnish

copies of advertising and other material

containing such claims, and (ii) supply

information establishing how prevalent

such claims are (i.e., how widespread

and serious the problem is).

(f) If there is a need to take action to

increase the ability of consumers to

make meaningful comparisons of

performance characteristics for

automotive sound amplification

products, what is the most appropriate

vehicle for accomplishing this goal (e.g.,

voluntary industry standards, consumer

education, business education,

industry/government public workshops,

amending the Amplifier Rule, etc.)?

(g) Regardless of the method favored

to improve consumers’ ability to

compare performance characteristics,

would any of the Rule’s current testing

or disclosure requirements for home

sound amplification products have to be

modified for use with automotive sound

amplification products due to any

differences in technology, marketing

considerations, or other reasons?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 432

Amplifiers; Home entertainment

products; Trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.
16502 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 66 / Monday, April 7, 1997 / Proposed Rules

By Direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8795 Filed 4–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 848]

RIN 1512–AA07

Mendocino Ridge Viticultural Area

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), is

considering the establishment of a

viticultural area located within the

boundaries of Mendocino County,

California to be known as ‘‘Mendocino

Ridge,’’ under 27 CFR part 9. This

proposal is the result of a petition

submitted by Mr. Steve Alden on behalf

of the Mendocino Ridge Quality

Alliance. The entire proposed area

consists of about 262,400 acres or

approximately 410 square miles with

the actual proposed ‘‘Mendocino Ridge’’

viticultural area starting at the 1200 feet

elevation line, and encompassing all

areas at or above 1200 feet in elevation.

Because of the 1200 foot elevation, this

proposed area is unique from other

coastal viticultural areas. Of the total

262,400 acres, the petitioner estimates

that less than one-third, or 87,466 acres,

lies above 1200 feet elevation. Of these

87,466 acres, the petitioner asserts that

approximately 1500 to 2000 acres or 2%

of the narrow timber covered ridge-tops

are suitable for grape production.

According to the petitioner, there are

approximately 75 acres of grapes

currently growing within the boundaries

of the proposed viticultural area. This

75 acres of grapes is divided among six

wineries.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by May 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Wine, Beer, and Spirits

Regulations Branch, Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221,

Washington, DC 20091–0221 (Attn:

Notice No. 848). Copies of the petition,

the proposed regulations, the

appropriate maps, and written

comments will be available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at: ATF Public Reading Room,

Office of Public Affairs and Disclosure,

Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Brokaw, Wine, Beer and

Spirits Regulations Branch, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927–8230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27

CFR part 4. These regulations allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine

labels and in wine advertisements. On

October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new part 9 to 27

CFR, providing for the listing of

approved American viticultural areas,

the names of which may be used as

appellations of origin.

Section 4.25a(e)(1), Title 27, CFR,

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographic features,

the boundaries of which have been

delineated in subpart C of part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2), Title 27, CFR,

outlines the procedure for proposing an

American viticultural area. Any

interested person may petition ATF to

establish a grape-growing region as a

viticultural area. The petition should

include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the

geographical characteristics (climate,

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)

which distinguish the viticultural

features of the proposed area from

surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable

scale, and;

(e) A copy (or copies) of the

appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the

proposed boundaries prominently

marked.

Petition

Mr. Steve Alden of Alden Ranch

Vineyards has petitioned ATF on behalf

of the Mendocino Ridge Quality

Alliance to propose the establishment of

a new viticultural area located within

the boundaries of Mendocino County,

California, to be known as ‘‘Mendocino

Ridge.’’ There are currently six

producing vineyards in the proposed

‘‘Mendocino Ridge’’ viticultural area.

The evidence submitted by the

petitioner is discussed in detail below.

Given the unusual nature of the

proposed area, ATF is requesting public

comment on specific questions

regarding the supporting evidence. It

should be noted that the proposed

viticultural area would include only the

land above a certain elevation within

the boundaries described. Thus, ATF

wishes to solicit public comment on the

following questions about the

geographic distinctiveness of the noncontiguous areas in the petition:

1. Do the non-contiguous sites in the

proposed viticultural area have such

similar climate, soil, and other

characteristics that they can be

considered as a single or common grape

growing region?

2. Is the actual land included within

the proposed viticultural area at the

1200 feet (and above) elevation line

reasonably distinguishable from the

adjacent land that is not included?

3. Does the totality of the geographic

evidence regarding the proposed

viticultural area support the application

of a reasonable proximity rule to

exclude widely scattered but otherwise

similar locations from being included

within the proposed grape-growing

region?

Evidence That the Name of the Area is

Locally or Nationally Known

The petitioner asserts that, the name

Mendocino Ridge has been chosen as

the name of the proposed viticultural

area because the region has been known

as producing some of the best and most

distinctive Zinfandel wine in the world.

In this regard, the petitioner asserts that

many books and magazines have

historically referred to the proposed

viticultural area as the Mendocino

Ridge. For example, in 1988 the winery,

Kendall-Jackson, wrote: ‘‘* * * the

vines in the Mariah vineyard are subject

to the same complicated climatic

variables that have caused wine experts

to hail the Mendocino Coastal Ridge as

one of the world’s greatest Zinfandel

regions.’’ More recently, in an article

published in the February 1994 issue of

Gourmet Magazine, wine writer Gerald

Asher wrote:

In Mendocino there’s an equally wide

divide between the tense and concentrated

Zinfandels produced from old vines planted

by turn-of-the-century Italian immigrants