Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11045 

1 FTC Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The comment 

must be accompanied by an explicit request for 

confidential treatment, including the factual and 

legal basis for the request, and must identify the 

specific portions of the comment to be withheld 

from the public record. The request will be granted 

or denied by the Commission’s General Counsel, 

consistent with applicable law and the public 

interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

fasteners. Use paragraphs 3.F.(2)(a) through 

3.F(2)(c) of MRAS ASB No. CF6–80C2 S/B 

78A1162, Revision 1, dated February 13, 

2009, to do the replacements. 

Initial Rod-End Replacements 

(h) For all 3⁄8-inch translating cowl 

adjustable-length actuator rod-ends, P/N 

KBE6–59, MS21242S06, B15946–13, 

15946000–13, or M81935/1–6 having more 

than 600 flight cycles-since-new on the 

effective date of this AD, replace them with 

P/N M81935/1–6, zero time rod-ends within 

500 flight cycles after the effective date of 

this AD. Use paragraphs 3.E.(2) through 

3.E.(7) of MRAS ASB No. CF6–80C2 S/B 

78A1162, Revision 1, dated February 13, 

2009, to do the replacements. 

Repetitive 3⁄8-inch Rod-End Replacements 

(i) Repetitively replace 3⁄8-inch translating 

cowl adjustable-length actuator rod-ends, 

P/N M81935/1–6, that were installed as 

specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, before 

they accumulate 11,000 flight cycles, with a 

zero time 3⁄8-inch adjustable-length rod-end, 

P/N M81935/1–6. Use paragraphs 3.E.(2) 

through 3.E.(7) of MRAS ASB No. CF6–80C2 

S/B 78A1162, Revision 1, dated February 13, 

2009, to do the replacements. 

Optional Terminating Action 

(j) As an optional terminating action to the 

repetitive 3⁄8-inch rod-end replacements 

required by this AD, replace the 3⁄8-inch 

adjustable rod-ends with either a fixed length 

rod-end, P/N 3238726–1, –2, or MS9560–08, 

or a 7/16-inch adjustable rod-end, P/N 

3238729–1. Use paragraph 3.E.(1) of MRAS 

ASB No. CF6–80C2 S/B 78A1162, Revision 1, 

dated February 13, 2009, to do the 

replacements. 

Installation Prohibition 

(k) Rod-ends removed to comply with this 

AD are not eligible for installation on any 

aircraft. 

Previous Credit 

(l) Inspections and replacements and 

optional terminating action performed before 

the effective date of this AD using MRAS 

ASB No. CF6–80C2 S/B 78A1162, dated 

December 30, 2008, satisfy the required 

initial actions and optional terminating 

action of this AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(m) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, has the authority to approve 

alternative methods of compliance for this 

AD if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(n) Contact Christopher J. Richards, 

Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 

12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, 

MA 01803; e-mail: 

christopher.j.richards@faa.gov; telephone 

(781) 238–7133; fax (781) 238–7199, for more 

information about this AD. 

(o) Contact Middle River Aircraft Systems, 

Mail Point 46, 103 Chesapeake Park Plaza, 

Baltimore, MD 21220, attn: Warranty 

Support; telephone (410) 682–0094; fax (410) 

682–0100, for a copy of the service 

information identified in this AD. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

March 9, 2009. 

Francis A. Favara, 

Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–5575 Filed 3–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

[RIN 3084–AB03] 

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: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Section 325 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

provides the Commission with authority 

to promulgate energy labeling rules for 

consumer electronics, including 

televisions. The Commission is seeking 

comment on whether it should require 

labels for televisions and other 

consumer electronic products. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: 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 comments 

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)—and therefore 

should not include any sensitive or 

confidential information. In particular, 

comments should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an 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 

any ‘‘[t]rade secrets and commercial or 

financial information obtained from a 

person and privileged or confidential 

. . . .,’’ as provided in Section 6(f) of the 

FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 

4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material 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).1

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 by 

using the following weblink: (https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcelectronicslabeling) (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://secure.commentworks.com/ftcelectronicslabeling). If this Notice 

appears at (http://www.regulations.gov/ 

search/index.jsp,) 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, NW, Washington, 

DC 20580. The FTC requests 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 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 

11046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2 For most appliances, the Commission must 

prescribe labeling rules unless it determines that 

labeling is not technologically or economically 

feasible (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1)). For central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, and clothes 

washers, the statute requires labeling unless the 

Commission finds that labeling is not 

technologically or economically feasible or is not 

likely to assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(A)). Pursuant to 

Section 6294(a)(1), the Commission determined not 

to require labeling for television sets, kitchen 

ranges, ovens, clothes dryers, humidifiers, 

dehumidifiers, and certain home heating equipment 

other than furnaces. See 44 FR 66466, 66468-66469 

(Nov. 19, 1979). 

3 Section 323 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293) directs 

DOE to develop test procedures for major 

household appliances. Manufacturers must follow 

these test procedures to determine their products’ 

compliance with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards (required by Section 325 of EPCA), and 

to derive the energy consumption or efficiency 

values to put on required labels. 

4 42 U.S.C. 6294(c). 

5 ENERGY STAR is a voluntary labeling program 

that identifies high efficiency products. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE 

administer the ENERGY STAR program. See http:// 

www.energystar.gov. 

6 See 42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(2)&(4). 

7 However, the Act states that the requirements 

would not apply in any case in which the 

Commission determines that the rules would not be 

technologically or economically feasible or would 

not be likely to assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions. See EISA, Section 325 (42 

U.S.C. 6294(a)). 

8 The Act directs 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). 

9 Any FTC labeling requirements must become 

effective 18 months after they are issued. 42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(2)(I)(iii). 

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

article which consumes, or is designed to consume 

energy and which, to any significant extent, is 

distributed in commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals. 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). As 

with the five consumer electronic categories 

specifically listed in the EISA amendments, the 

FTC may identify a non-DOE test procedure for 

labeling such additional consumer products (in the 

absence of a DOE test procedure) and has discretion 

to require comparative information on the label. 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm.) As a matter of 

discretion, the Commission 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.shtm.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 

326-2889, Division of Enforcement, 

Federal Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

325 of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA or the Act) 

(Pub. L. 110-140) gives the Commission 

authority to require energy labeling for 

five categories of consumer electronic 

products. In accordance with that Act, 

the Commission is seeking comment on 

labeling for such products. This Notice 

provides information about current 

energy labeling requirements, the FTC’s 

new authority for consumer electronics 

labeling, background on previous FTC 

labeling activities related to these 

products, potential television labeling, 

potential labeling for other consumer 

electronics, and a series of questions for 

commenters. 

I. Current Energy Labeling 

Requirements 

Section 324 of the Energy Policy and 

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

6294) requires the FTC to prescribe 

labeling rules for the disclosure of 

estimated annual energy costs or 

alternative energy consumption 

information for a variety of products 

covered by the statute, including home 

appliances (e.g., refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and dishwashers), lighting, 

and plumbing products.2 For most 

covered products, labels must disclose 

energy information derived from 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedures.3 The Commission may also 

require sellers, including retailers, to 

disclose energy information found on 

the label in any printed material 

displayed or distributed at the point of 

sale. In addition, the Commission may 

direct manufacturers to provide energyrelated disclosures including 

instructions for the maintenance, use, or 

repair of the covered product.4

The Commission implements EPCA’s 

directive through the Appliance 

Labeling Rule (16 CFR Part 305). Under 

the Rule, appliance manufacturers must 

disclose specific energy use information 

at the point of sale in the form of a 

yellow ‘‘EnergyGuide’’ label affixed to 

each unit. This information also must 

appear in catalogs and on Internet sites 

from which covered products can be 

ordered. Labels for most appliances 

must provide the product’s estimated 

annual operating cost as the primary 

disclosure. To calculate these operating 

cost estimates, manufacturers must use 

national average cost figures for energy 

(e.g., electricity, natural gas, etc.) 

determined by DOE. The Rule also 

allows manufacturers to place the U.S. 

Government ENERGY STAR logo on 

labels for products that qualify for that 

program.5 Required labels for 

appliances must include a ‘‘range of 

comparability’’ (published by the 

Commission) that shows, for most 

products, the highest and lowest 

operating cost of all similar appliance 

models. These ranges help consumers 

compare similar models. 

The Commission’s Rule also requires 

manufacturers of most covered products 

to file data 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 the DOE test procedures (16 CFR 

305.8(b)).6

II. FTC’s New Authority for Consumer 

Electronics Labeling 

Section 325 of EISA amends EPCA to 

direct the Commission to prescribe 

labeling for televisions, personal 

computers, cable or satellite set-top 

boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder 

boxes, and personal computer 

monitors.7 The Act also specifically 

provides the Commission with 

discretion to consider other types of 

energy disclosures for consumers in lieu 

of traditional product labeling for these 

consumer electronics.8 The Commission 

must issue such requirements no later 

than 18 months after DOE publishes 

applicable test procedures for such 

products. In the absence of such test 

procedures, the Commission has 

discretion to require labeling if it 

identifies adequate non-DOE testing 

procedures, and determines that 

disclosure requirements for those 

products are likely to assist consumers 

in making purchasing decisions.9 EISA 

also gives the Commission discretion to 

require comparative information on the 

label or in other disclosures. 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.10

A. Television Labeling 

The Commission is seeking comment 

on possible energy labeling or similar 

disclosures for televisions. As discussed 

in more detail below, the Commission 

did not require television labeling in its 

original 1979 Rule. In 2007, the 

Commission revisited this issue but 

declined to require television labeling 

because the existing DOE test procedure 

was inapplicable to modern televisions. 

Because EISA now allows the FTC to 

use non-DOE test procedures for 

television labeling requirements, we are 

seeking comment on whether to require 

labeling based on a new test procedure 

recently adopted by EPA’s ENERGY 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11047 

11 44 FR 66466, 66468 (Nov. 19, 1979). 

12 72 FR 6836, 6857 (Feb. 13, 2007). 

13 According to the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), there are now 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). 

14 See 72 FR 49948, 49962 (Aug. 29, 2007). 

15 72 FR at 6858 (Feb. 13, 2007). 

16 See International Electrotechnical Commission 

(http://www.iec.ch/); and ‘‘ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements for Televisions Eligibility Criteria 

(Version 3.0)’’ (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ 

partners/product_specs/eligibility/tv_vcr_elig.pdf). 

17 The current EnergyGuide label is the product 

of a two-year rulemaking effort concluded in 2007. 

During that proceeding, the Commission solicited 

comment about various label designs including 

energy use or efficiency disclosures, annual 

operating cost disclosures, and a five-star rating 

system (i.e., a ‘‘categorical’’ label). Based on 

consumer research and the comments received 

during that proceeding, the Commission revised the 

EnergyGuide label to feature prominently annual 

operating costs on the label. Because this research 

on showroom products was so recent, we do not 

plan to duplicate that labeling research for 

televisions. See 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007). 

STAR program. We also seek comment 

on whether there are other test 

procedures we should consider. 

Televisions have been covered 

products under EPCA since the 1970’s. 

In 1979, the Commission determined 

not to require labeling because there 

was little variation in the annual energy 

costs of competing television models 

and such costs were a small fraction of 

the purchase price. The Commission, 

therefore, believed it was unlikely that 

labels for televisions would promote 

industry efforts to increase energy 

efficiency, or provide benefits to 

consumers.11

In 2007, the FTC revisited the issue 

and sought comment on whether the 

Rule should require television 

labeling.12 Several commenters urged 

the Commission to require labeling. The 

comments suggested that many modern 

televisions use as much, or more, 

electricity than products currently 

labeled under the Rule. In addition, 

comments indicated that there is a 

significant range of energy use among 

similar products on the market.13 The 

energy consumption characteristics of 

televisions, therefore, appear to be 

significantly different than when the 

Commission decided to forgo labeling in 

the 1970’s. After considering these 

comments, the Commission concluded 

that energy labeling for televisions may 

assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions.14 At the same time, however, 

the record indicated that current DOE 

test procedures were inadequate to test 

most televisions on the market. Because 

the law at that time required the use of 

DOE test procedures, the Commission 

decided not to proceed further until the 

DOE test procedure was revised.15

The most recent EPCA amendments 

allow the Commission to consider nonDOE test procedures for television 

labeling. EPA’s ENERGY STAR program 

has adopted criteria for televisions 

based on specific international test 

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’’).16 The procedures require 

manufacturers to measure the power 

consumed by televisions when the 

products are on and in standby mode. 

Given these existing ENERGY STAR 

procedures and the comments received 

in response to the 2007 proceeding, the 

Commission is considering television 

labeling again and seeks comment on 

adoption of the IEC procedures (and any 

other appropriate procedures) for 

labeling purposes. 

The Commission also is seeking 

comment on the appropriate format for 

television energy use disclosures. The 

Appliance Labeling Rule follows a 

consistent approach for labeling most 

large covered products displayed in 

showrooms. In particular, the Rule 

requires manufacturers to affix a yellow 

EnergyGuide label that displays yearly 

operating cost as the primary energy 

disclosure for the product. The 

Commission is seeking comment on 

whether such an approach is 

appropriate for televisions or whether 

there are alternative formats and 

locations for the disclosure of energy 

information.17 Although televisions 

routinely appear in showrooms, the 

configuration of these products may 

raise placement issues not present with 

appliances such as refrigerators or 

clothes washers. For example, it may be 

difficult to affix labels on the products 

themselves in a location that is visible 

to consumers without blocking the 

television screen. As detailed in Section 

III of this Notice, the Commission is 

seeking input on a variety of issues 

related to television disclosures, 

including the need for such disclosures, 

the format and placement of 

information, comparative information, 

usage assumptions, and test procedures. 

B. Other Consumer Electronic Products 

The Commission is also seeking 

information about potential labeling 

requirements for personal computers, 

cable or satellite set-top boxes, standalone digital video recorder boxes, 

personal computer monitors, and other 

consumer electronic products. Although 

currently there are no DOE tests for 

these products, EISA gives the 

Commission the discretion to require 

energy disclosures for them using nonDOE test procedures. Therefore, the 

Commission is seeking comment on the 

need for such disclosures, any 

appropriate test procedures, the format 

of labels or disclosures, and the 

placement of labels on the products. We 

are also seeking comment on a series of 

questions about potential labeling 

detailed in Section III of this Notice. 

III. Request for Comment 

The Commission seeks written 

comments on a series of questions 

related to labeling for televisions and 

other consumer electronic products. We 

invite interested persons to submit 

written comments on any issue of fact, 

law, or policy that may bear upon the 

FTC’s labeling requirements. The 

Commission encourages commenters to 

respond to the specific questions. 

However, commenters do not need to 

respond to all questions. Please provide 

explanations for your answers and 

supporting evidence where appropriate. 

After examining the comments, the 

Commission will determine whether to 

propose any specific amendments. 

A. Televisions 

To facilitate the Commission’s efforts 

to consider energy disclosures for 

televisions, we request that commenters 

consider the following questions and 

issues: 

1. Need for Labeling: 

a. Would labeling or other energy 

disclosures for televisions ‘‘assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions’’? Why or why not? 

b. Is there any evidence that labeling 

or energy disclosures for televisions 

would ‘‘not be technologically or 

economically feasible’’? If so, please 

provide such information. 

c. What benefits, if any, would 

labeling or other energy disclosures 

provide for consumers and businesses 

(including small businesses)? What 

costs, if any, would such labeling or 

other energy disclosures impose on 

consumers and businesses (including 

small businesses)? 

2. Energy Use Data: Is there data 

regarding energy use of televisions in 

the market? Is there data that shows a 

significant difference in the energy use 

of other models? What are the typical 

annual energy costs of each product? 

3. Reports, Studies, or Research: Do 

any recent reports, studies, or research 

11048 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

18 When statistical or scientific data is presented, 

the Commission requests enough detail about data, 

study design, statistical analysis, and findings to 

enable it to understand the methodology that was 

used to conduct the analysis. 

19 Section 324(c)(4) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6294(c)(4)) states: ‘‘A rule under this section 

applicable to a covered product may require 

disclosure, in any printed matter displayed or 

distributed at the point of sale of such product, of 

any information which may be required under this 

section to be disclosed on the label of such 

product.’’ 

20 Under 42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(2), ‘‘[i]f requested by 

the Secretary or Commission, the manufacturer of 

a covered product to which a rule under section 

6294 of this title applies shall provide, within 30 

days of the date of the request, the data from which 

the information included on the label and required 

by the rule was derived.’’ In addition, 42 U.S.C. 

6296(b)(4) states, ‘‘[e]ach manufacturer of a covered 

product to which a rule under section 6294 of this 

title applies shall annually, at a time specified by 

the Commission, supply to the Commission 

relevant data respecting energy consumption or 

water use developed in accordance with the test 

procedures applicable to such product under 

section 6293 of this title.’’ 

provide data relevant to energy use, 

operating costs, and labeling for 

televisions in the United States or other 

countries?18 If so, please provide such 

reports, studies, or research. 

4. Test Procedures: If the Commission 

were to require labeling, should the 

Commission require the use of 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’’ as adopted by ENERGY STAR 

for television labeling purposes? What 

are the advantages and disadvantages to 

adopting the ENERGY STAR 

procedures? 

a. Usage Rates: To derive annual 

operating cost figures for potential 

disclosures, the Rule must require 

standard usage assumptions for 

televisions (e.g., 5 hours per day). EPA’s 

Eligibility Criteria (Section 3) uses 

annual power consumption estimates on 

a daily usage pattern of 5 hours in ‘‘On 

Mode’’ and 19 hours in ‘‘standby.’’ If the 

FTC were to require labeling or other 

energy disclosures, should the FTC 

adopt EPA’s usage patterns? What are 

the advantages and disadvantages to 

adopting such usage patterns? 

b. Other Test Procedure Issues: Are 

there any issues not addressed by 

Section 11 of IEC 62087 that the 

Commission should address in a 

potential Rule? Are there any aspects of 

the ENERGY STAR criteria (not 

otherwise contained in IEC 62087 or IEC 

62301) that the Commission should 

incorporate into its labeling 

requirements? In particular, ENERGY 

STAR (Section 4.E.2.) has specifications 

that go beyond the IEC test procedure 

regarding input signal levels, broadcast 

test materials, true power factor, testing 

at default factory settings, and automatic 

brightness control. Should the FTC 

adopt any of these particular EPA 

specifications in its requirements? If so, 

which ones and why? If not, which ones 

and why not? 

c. Alternative Test Procedures: Are 

there any other test procedures the 

Commission should adopt in lieu of the 

ENERGY STAR procedure? If so, please 

explain why the Commission should 

adopt such procedures. What are the 

advantages and disadvantages to 

adopting such alternative procedures? 

5. Format, Content, and Placement: If 

the Commission were to require labeling 

or other energy disclosures, how should 

it require manufacturers or other sellers 

to disclose such information? Should 

television labels follow the same 

‘‘EnergyGuide’’ format, content, and 

placement requirements applicable to 

other covered showroom products such 

as refrigerators? What form should the 

label take (e.g., hang tag, adhesive label, 

static cling label)? 

a. Retailer Role: What role should 

retailers have, if any, in providing these 

disclosures?19 Should retailers have a 

responsibility for the placement of 

disclosures in brick and mortar stores? 

If so, what should this responsibility be? 

b. Internet Disclosures: Should the 

Commission consider energy disclosure 

options that do not provide consumer 

information at the point of purchase in 

the form of a label or other in-store 

disclosures (e.g., Internet-only 

disclosures with no labeling on the 

product or product package)? If so, what 

should be the format, content, and 

placement of such disclosures? Should 

such Internet disclosures (and other 

catalog disclosures) be any different 

than those for other covered products 

under the Rule (such as refrigerators)? 

6. Comparative Information: What 

comparative information, if any, should 

the Rule require on labels or in other 

disclosures about the energy use of 

televisions? 

a. Should the Commission require 

disclosure of a range of comparability 

similar to EnergyGuide labels for other 

covered products? If not, why not? If so, 

how should such comparative 

information be organized? Should the 

comparisons be made across model 

types or technologies (e.g., LCD, plasma, 

screen resolutions, etc.)? Should the 

Commission limit comparative 

information to screen size (e.g., 1′ to 20′, 

21′ to 29′, 30′ to 39′, 40′ to 49′, 50′ to 

59′, and 60′ or more)? Should the 

Commission use some other approach 

for establishing such categories? If so, 

what approach? What would be the 

advantages and disadvantages to such 

an approach? 

b. Is there information available from 

which to develop approximate ranges 

for labeling purposes or should the 

Commission wait for manufacturers to 

test all their products and submit such 

data to the Commission? 

7. Reporting Requirements: What data, 

if any, should the Rule require 

manufacturers to submit to the FTC?20

Should the Commission use the data in 

developing ranges of comparability (e.g., 

ranges organized by screen size)? 

B. Other Consumer Electronics 

To facilitate the Commission’s 

consideration of energy disclosures for 

personal computers, personal computer 

monitors, cable or satellite set-top 

boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder 

boxes, and other consumer electronic 

products, we request that commenters 

respond to the following questions and 

issues: 

1. Need for Energy Disclosures: 

a. Should the Commission require 

labeling or other energy disclosures for 

personal computers, personal computer 

monitors, cable or satellite set-top 

boxes, and stand-alone digital video 

recorder boxes? Would labeling or other 

energy disclosures ‘‘assist consumers in 

making purchasing decisions’’? Is there 

any evidence that labeling or other 

energy disclosures for these products 

would ‘‘not be technologically or 

economically feasible’’ or ‘‘not likely to 

assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions’’? 

b. Are there any other consumer 

electronic products (i.e., beyond those 

listed above) that the Commission 

should consider for labeling or other 

energy disclosures? If so, which ones? 

Would labeling or other energy 

disclosures ‘‘assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions’’? 

c. What benefits, if any, would 

labeling or other energy disclosures for 

consumer electronics (i.e., any product 

identified in response to 1.a. or 1.b. 

immediately above) provide for 

consumers and businesses (including 

small businesses)? What costs would 

such labeling or other energy 

disclosures impose on consumers and 

businesses (including small businesses)? 

2. Energy Use Data: Is there data 

regarding energy use of consumer 

electronic products (i.e., any product 

identified in response to 1.a. or 1.b. 

above) in the market? If so, is there data 

that shows a significant difference in the 

energy use of other models? What are 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 49 / Monday, March 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 11049 

21 When statistical or scientific data is presented, 

the Commission requests enough detail about data, 

study design, statistical analysis, and findings to 

enable it to understand the methodology that was 

used to conduct the analysis. 

the annual energy costs of these 

products? 

3. Reports, Studies, or Research: Do 

any recent reports, studies, or research 

provide data relevant to potential energy 

disclosures for consumer electronics 

products in the United States or other 

countries?21

4. Test Procedures: Are there existing 

adequate test procedures for consumer 

electronic products that could yield 

annual energy consumption estimates? 

If so, are such test procedures currently 

used by industry or in any government 

standards program? Would such test 

procedures be appropriate for the 

Commission to adopt for labeling 

purposes? Why or why not? 

5. Format, Content, and Placement: If 

the Commission considers labeling or 

other energy disclosures for one or more 

of these products, what should be the 

format, content, and placement of such 

information? How do consumers 

purchase these products (e.g., in stores, 

online, etc.)? Should disclosures appear 

on the products themselves, on 

packaging, through other point of 

purchase material, or through some 

other means? 

a. Retailer Role: What role, if any, 

should retailers have in providing these 

disclosures? Should retailers have a 

responsibility for the placement of 

disclosures in brick and mortar stores? 

If so, what should this responsibility be? 

b. Internet Disclosures: Should the 

Commission consider energy disclosure 

options that do not provide consumer 

information at the point of purchase in 

the form of a label or other in-store 

disclosure (e.g., Internet-only 

disclosures with no labeling on the 

product or product package)? Should 

such Internet disclosures (and other 

catalog disclosures) be any different 

than those for other covered products 

under the Rule (such as refrigerators)? 

c. Content: If labeling or other energy 

disclosures should be required, what 

types of information should be included 

on such labels? Should labeling provide 

the same information as the 

EnergyGuide label (i.e., yearly operating 

costs, energy use, and comparative 

information)? Or should the label 

require something different or 

additional? 

6. Comparative Information: What, if 

any, disclosures should the Rule require 

about other products on the market? If 

the Commission requires a label, should 

the label contain a range of 

comparability like other covered 

products with the EnergyGuide label? If 

not, why not? If so, how should such 

comparative information be organized? 

Should the comparisons be made across 

model types and technologies? Is there 

data available from which to develop 

approximate ranges for labeling 

purposes or should the Commission 

wait for manufacturers to test all their 

products and submit such data to the 

Commission? 

7. Reporting Requirements: What data, 

if any, should the Rule require 

manufacturers to submit to the FTC? 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 

Advertising, Consumer Protection, 

Energy Conservation, Household 

Appliances, Labeling, Lamp Products, 

Penalties, Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–5560 Filed 3–13–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0884 FRL–8771–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act, EPA 

is proposing to correct errors in certain 

final rules approving or compiling the 

Hawaii state implementation plan. 

These errors relate to the title of the 

plan, removal of variance provisions, 

and compilations of federally 

enforceable regulations. The intended 

effect is to ensure that the Hawaii state 

implementation plan is correctly 

identified in the applicable part of the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by April 15, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0884, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Ginger Vagenas 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

www.regulations.gov portal is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA 

will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ginger Vagenas, Plannning Office (AIR– 

2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 942–3964, 

vagenas.ginger@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses corrections to errors 

made by EPA in a 1997 final rule 

removing variance-related provisions 

from the Hawaii SIP and in a 2005 final 

rule compiling the Hawaii SIP. In the 

Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are correcting 

these errors in a direct final action 

without prior proposal because we 

believe these actions are not 

controversial. 

If we receive adverse comments, 

however, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule and 

address the comments in subsequent 

action based on this proposed rule. 

Please note that if we receive adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, we may adopt as