[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 39 (Wednesday, February 27, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10403-10405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-3715]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 39 / Wednesday, February 27, 2008 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 10403]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 432
Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for
Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'')
requests public comment on its Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power
Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products
(``Amplifier Rule'' or ``Rule''). The Commission solicits comment as
part of its systematic review of all current FTC rules and guides.
DATES: Written comments relating to the Amplifier Rule review must be
received by May 12, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments
relating to the Amplifier Rule review. To facilitate organization of
comments, comments should refer to ``Amplifier Rule Regulatory Review,
16 CFR Part 432, Comment, Project No. P974222.'' A comment filed in
paper form should include this 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 E),
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments
containing confidential material must be filed in paper form, must be
clearly labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule
4.9(c).\1\ The FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form
be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal
mail in the Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay
due to heightened security precautions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 Commission Rule 4.9(c),
16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following
the instructions on the web-based form at https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-AmplifierRuleReview. To ensure that the
Commission considers an electronic comment, you must file it on that
web-based form. You may also visit http://www.regulations.gov to read
this notice, and may file an electronic comment through that website.
The Commission will consider all comments that www.regulations.gov
forwards to it.
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
website, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter
of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove individuals' home
contact information from the public comments it receives before placing
those comments on the FTC website. To read our policy on how we handle
the information you submit--including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act--please review the FTC's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jock Chung, Attorney, 202-326-2984,
Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
Commission.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In response to misleading or confusing power distortion and other
performance claims, the Commission issued the Amplifier Rule in 1974 to
assist consumers purchasing power amplification equipment for home
entertainment purposes by standardizing the measurement and disclosure
of various amplifier performance characteristics (39 FR 15387). The
Rule establishes uniform test standards and disclosures to aid
consumers in making meaningful comparisons of amplifier performance
attributes.
II. Regulatory Review of the Amplifier Rule
The Commission reviews each of its rules and guides periodically to
assess the rule's or guide's efficacy, costs, and benefits; and to
determine whether to retain, modify, or rescind it. This notice
commences the Commission's review of the Amplifier Rule.
A. General Areas of Interest for FTC Review
As part of its review, the Commission seeks comment on a number of
general issues, including the continuing need for the Rule and its
economic impact. The Commission believes that this review is important
to ensure that the Rule is appropriately responsive to changes in the
marketplace.
B. Specific Areas of Interest for FTC Review
After its last revisions to the Rule in 2000, the Commission issued
a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``SNPR'') soliciting
comment on Commission proposals to amend the definition of ``associated
channels'' in connection with the power rating testing of multichannel
``home theater'' amplifiers (65 FR 80798 (2000)). Multichannel
amplifiers incorporate five or more amplification channels and are
designed to decode and/or amplify digitally encoded multichannel movie
soundtracks or music. Section 432.2(a) of the Rule requires an
amplifier's continuous power output per channel to be ``[m]easured with
all associated channels fully driven to rated per channel power.''\2\
Thus, manufacturers of multichannel audio/video receivers and
amplifiers must decide which of the five or more discrete channels of
amplification are ``associated'' and, therefore, subject to
simultaneous operation at full rated power. In its SNPR, the Commission
solicited public comment on three alternative designations of
``associated channels'' for such audio amplifiers.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This continuous measurement represents the maximum per-
channel power an amplifier can deliver over a five minute period.
\3\ The three proposed alternatives were: (1) all channels
associated as one group; (2) the front right and left channels and
the center channel associated as one group, and the surround
channels associated as a second group; and (3) the front stereo
channels associated as one group, the center channel treated as a
second group, and the surround channels associated as a third group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10404]]
The SNPR elicited one comment, submitted by the Consumer
Electronics Association (``CEA''). CEA noted that there was no industry
consensus on testing, measuring, and specifying the power output of
multichannel amplifier products. Consequently, CEA formed an industry
working group to establish a voluntary industry standard.
On January 15, 2002, at the request of CEA, the Commission deferred
action on the proposed rule to allow a consensus procedure for the
testing of multichannel amplifiers to develop (67 FR 1915). Although
CEA subsequently issued a standard, designated CEA-490-A, ``Test
Methods of Measurement for Audio Amplifiers,''\4\ the Commission's
review did not find widespread adoption of this standard in
advertisements or product specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Copies of the test procedures may be obtained for a fee from
IHS Inc., 15 Inverness Way East, Englewood, CO 80112, or online from
http://global.ihs.com/doc_detail.cfm?item_s_key=00033449&item_key_date=970530&rid=CEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With no universally adopted power rating standard for multichannel
amplifiers, the Commission was faced with the prospect of making a
regulatory decision affecting a growing market for ``home theaters''
based on an outdated record. Consequently, the Commission terminated
its rulemaking on March 20, 2007, stating that the rulemaking record
was insufficient for further regulatory decisions (72 FR 13052).
However, when it terminated the rulemaking, the Commission stated
that it would place the Amplifier Rule on its regulatory review
schedule for 2008, during which it would solicit comments to determine
what, if any amendments are appropriate to address the testing of
multichannel amplifiers. Some of the questions included in this notice,
therefore, address issues regarding the usage of multichannel ``home
theater'' amplifiers by consumers, and the costs and benefits of
requiring different methodologies for rating the power output of
multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers. By including these issues,
the Commission intends to facilitate comment, and the inclusion, or
exclusion, of any issue is no indication of the Commission's intent to
make any specific modifications to the Rule.
III. Issues for Comment
The Commission requests written comment on any or all of the
following questions. Please make your responses as specific as
possible, including a reference to the question being answered, and
reference to empirical data or other evidence wherever available and
appropriate.
A. General Issues
(1) Is there a continuing need for the Rule? Why or why not?
(2) What benefits has the Rule provided to consumers? What evidence
supports the asserted benefits?
(3) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase
its benefits to consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for businesses, and in particular small businesses?
(4) What impact has the Rule had on the flow of truthful information to
consumers and on the flow of deceptive information to consumers?
(5) What significant costs has the Rule imposed on consumers? What
evidence supports the asserted costs?
(6) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce
the costs imposed on consumers?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for businesses, and in particular small businesses?
(7) Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2000
concerning consumer perception of home entertainment amplifier power
rating claims, including claims not currently covered by the Rule. Does
this new information indicate that the Rule should be modified? If so,
why, and how? If not, why not?
(8) Please provide any evidence that has become available since 2000
concerning consumer interest in particular home entertainment amplifier
power rating issues. Does this new information indicate that the Rule
should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(9) What benefits, if any, has the Rule provided to businesses, and in
particular to small businesses? What evidence supports the asserted
benefits?
(10) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase
its benefits to businesses, and in particular to small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for businesses?
(11) What significant costs, including costs of compliance, has the
Rule imposed on businesses, and in particular on small businesses? What
evidence supports the asserted costs?
(12) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce
the costs imposed on businesses, and in particular on small businesses?
(a) What evidence supports your proposed modifications?
(b) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for consumers?
(c) How would these modifications affect the costs and benefits of the
Rule for businesses?
(13) What evidence is available concerning the degree of industry
compliance with the Rule?
(a) To what extent has there been a reduction in deceptive home
entertainment amplifier power rating claims since the Rule was issued?
Please provide any supporting evidence. Does this evidence indicate
that the Rule should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(b) To what extent has the Rule reduced marketers' uncertainty about
which claims might lead to FTC law enforcement actions? Please provide
any supporting evidence. Does this evidence indicate that the Rule
should be modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
(14) Are there claims addressed in the Rule on which regulation is no
longer needed? If so, explain. Please provide supporting evidence.
(15) What potentially unfair or deceptive home entertainment amplifier
power rating claims, if any, are not covered by the Rule?
(a) What evidence demonstrates the existence of such claims?
(b) With reference to such claims, should the Rule be modified? If so,
why, and how? If not, why not?
(16) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Rule to account
for changes in relevant technology or economic conditions? What
evidence supports the proposed modifications?
(17) Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or
local laws or regulations? If so, how?
(a) What evidence supports the asserted conflicts?
(b) With reference to the asserted conflicts, should the Rule be
modified? If so, why, and how? If not, why not?
[[Page 10405]]
(c) Is there evidence concerning whether the Rule has assisted in
promoting national consistency with respect to the regulation of home
entertainment amplifier power rating claims? If so, please provide that
evidence.
(18) Are there international laws, regulations, or standards with
respect to home entertainment amplifier power rating claims that the
Commission should consider as it reviews the Rule? If so, what are
they? Should the Rule be modified in order to harmonize with these
international laws, regulations, or standards? If so, why, and how? If
not, why not?
(19) Do current or impending changes in technology affect whether and
how the Rule should be modified?
B. Specific Issues
(1) Should the Rule be revised to include additional guidance regarding
power ratings for multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers? If so, why,
and what guidance should be provided? If not, why not? What evidence
supports your answer(s)?
(2) What methods are currently used to measure the power outputs of
multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers? Does use of these methods
cause consumer injury? What evidence supports your answer(s)?
(3) How often during typical usage, i.e., for what percentage of usage
time, are multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers required to produce
full rated output in all channels simultaneously? What evidence
supports your answer?
(4) How often during typical usage, i.e., for what percentage of usage
time, are multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers required to produce
full rated output in the three front channels simultaneously? What
evidence supports your answer?
(5) What are the incremental effects on power ratings for multichannel
``home theater'' amplifiers of driving two, three, four, five, six, or
more channels simultaneously? What evidence supports your answers?
(6) For a given rated power output, e.g., 100 Watts per channel, what
is the added cost of producing a multichannel ``home theater''
amplifier that can provide full rated power in all channels
simultaneously rather than in only one channel? What evidence supports
your answer?
(7) Should the Rule require that any channels be designated as
associated when testing the power output of multichannel ``home
theater'' amplifiers? If so, which channels should be designated as
associated? What evidence supports your answer?
(8) Should Consumer Electronics Association protocol CEA-490-A be
incorporated into the Rule? Why or why not? What evidence supports your
answer?
(9) Do current or impending changes in technology, such as the
development of self-powered wired and wireless speakers, affect whether
and how the Rule should be modified regarding power rating protocols
for multichannel ``home theater'' amplifiers?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 432
Amplifiers, Home entertainment products, Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary
[FR Doc. E8-3715 Filed 2-26-08: 8:45 am]
[BILLING CODE 6750-01-S]