[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37238-37242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18204]



[[Page 37237]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Federal Trade Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



16 CFR Part 432



Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers 
Utilized in Home Entertainment Products; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 37238]]



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: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'' or ``FTC''), has 
completed its regulatory review of the Rule relating to Power Output 
Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (the 
``Amplifier Rule'' or the ``Rule''). Pursuant to that review, the 
Commission concludes that the Amplifier Rule continues to provide 
benefits to consumers and firms. The regulatory review record also 
suggests that certain substantive amendments to the Rule may be 
appropriate, and could reduce compliance obligations without lessening 
the protection provided by the Rule. Accordingly, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend 
the Rule to: reduce the preconditioning power output requirement from 
one-third of rated power to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated 
power; exempt sellers who make power output claims in media advertising 
from the requirement to disclose total rated harmonic distortion and 
the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings; and clarify the 
manner in which the Rule's testing procedures apply to self-powered 
subwoofer-satellite combination speaker systems. The regulatory review 
record also suggests that a non-substantive technical amendment be made 
to the Rule to clarify the Rule's applicability to self-powered 
loudspeakers for use in the home. A Notice of Final Action announcing 
such amendment is published elsewhere in this Federal Register.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until September 8, 1998.

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--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Murphy, Economist, Division of 
Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, (202) 326-3524 or Robert E. 
Easton, Esq., Special Assistant, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3029, Federal Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A--General Background Information

    The Commission is publishing this notice pursuant to Section 18 of 
the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions of Part 1, Subpart B 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et 
seq. This authority permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and 
repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or 
practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within 
the meaning of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
    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. On April 7, 
1997, the Commission published a Federal Register Notice (``FRN'') 
seeking comment on the Rule as part of an ongoing project to review all 
Commission rules and guides to determine their current effectiveness 
and impact (62 FR 16500). This FRN sought comment on the costs and 
benefits of the Rule, what changes in the Rule would increase its 
benefits to purchasers and how those changes would affect compliance 
costs, and whether technological or marketplace changes have affected 
the Rule. The FRN also sought comment on issues related to the Rule's 
product coverage, test procedures, and disclosure requirements.
    The FRN elicited six written comments.\1\ Two commenters expressed 
continuing support for the Rule because it has given consumers a 
standardized method of comparing the power output of audio 
amplifiers.\2\ One commenter noted that industry use of this 
standardized testing method has created a level playing field among 
competitors.\3\ Another commenter stated that the rule may initially 
have caused an increase in product prices, but ultimately manufacturers 
have responded by making better products at more affordable prices.\4\ 
None of the four remaining commenters stated that the costs of the Rule 
exceeded its benefits, or that there were any other reasons why the 
Rule should be rescinded. On the basis of this review, the Commission 
has decided that the Rule provides benefits to consumers and industry 
and that there is a continuing need for the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The commenters were: Phillips Sound Labs [Phillips](1); 
Fultron Car Audio [Fultron](2); Klipsch Audio and Home Theater 
Products [Klipsch](3); Miller & Kreisel Sound Corporation [MK](4); 
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association [CEMA](5); and Labtec 
Multimedia Speakers [Labtec](6). The comments are cited as ``[name 
of commenter], Comment (designated number), p. __.'' All Rule review 
comments are on the public record and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from 
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal 
holidays.
    \2\ CEMA, (5), p. 2; Fultron, (2), p. 1.
    \3\ CEMA, (5), p. 3.
    \4\ Fultron, (2), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record also suggests that there have been technological and 
marketplace changes that may warrant modifications to the Rule. 
Accordingly, the Commission is publishing this ANPR seeking public 
comment on whether it should initiate a rulemaking by publishing a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') under section 18 of the FTC 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a. The proceeding would address whether the Commission 
should (1) Amend certain required test procedures that may impose 
unnecessary costs on manufacturers; (2) eliminate certain disclosure 
requirements in media advertising; and (3) clarify testing procedures 
for self-powered speakers.

Part B--Objectives the Commission Seeks To Achieve and Possible 
Regulatory Alternatives

1. Modifications to the Amplifier Rule Preconditioning Requirements

a. Background
    Section 432.3(c) of the Rule specifies that an amplifier must be 
preconditioned by simultaneously operating all channels at one-third of 
rated power output for one hour using a sinusoidal wave at a frequency 
of 1,000 Hz. The prior FRN questioned whether this preconditioning 
requirement should be modified. One comment stated that the Rule's 
preconditioning requirements do not reflect normal use conditions in 
the home and are leading some manufacturers to design amplifiers with 
excessively large and costly heat sinks, or to publish overly 
conservative power ratings.\5\ Specifically, the commenter maintained 
that operating a typical amplifier at one-third of rated power for an 
hour represents a worst-case condition in terms of heat dissipation--
one that exceeds the thermal stress that would be placed on the 
amplifier when operating at full rated power. The

[[Page 37239]]

commenter states that Sec. 432.3(c) is particularly burdensome for high 
power solid-state amplifiers during performance tests into 4 ohm loads. 
The commenter maintained that, as a result, many manufacturers must 
either refrain from publishing 4-ohm power specifications, publish 4-
ohm power specifications that are lower than those the consumer could 
achieve in typical home use, or provide otherwise unnecessary heat sink 
capacity sufficient to protect the amplifier during preconditioning for 
ratings at higher and more realistic power output levels.\6\ The 
commenter also noted that existing industry standard test methods, such 
as UL (Underwriters Laboratories) Standards 1492 and 6500, specify that 
amplifiers be preconditioned at one-eighth of rated power.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CEMA, (5), p. 5.
    \6\ Id. at 4-5.
    \7\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
    The record suggests that Sec. 432.3(c) should be amended to reflect 
more realistically the maximum thermal stress that amplifiers are 
likely to encounter during actual in-home use. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should amend the 
rule to reduce the preconditioning power output requirement from one-
third of rated power to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated 
power.

2. Amendment to Required Disclosures Section of the Amplifier Rule

a. Background
    Section 432.2 of the Rule 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. In the FRN, the Commission solicited 
comment on whether there was a continuing need for the Rule to require 
disclosure of maximum harmonic distortion in media advertising, or 
whether such disclosure would be required only when maximum rated 
harmonic distortion exceeds a specified threshold level, such as one 
percent. In addition, the Commission solicited comment on whether 
certain types of advertising, such as that commonly used by retail 
stores to present basic price and feature information in a limited 
amount of space, should be exempted from some or all of the power 
bandwidth, distortion, and impedance disclosures.
    The one comment that addressed this issue stated that total 
harmonic distortion below one percent has little meaning to consumers 
because it is inaudible, and it recommended that the Commission 
consider an exemption from disclosure of maximum rated harmonic 
distortion when rated distortion is at or below one percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ID. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's own review of published specifications for 
currently marketed power amplification equipment for use in the home 
indicates that total harmonic distortion ratings in excess of one 
percent are very rare. The few exceptions are associated primarily with 
expensive vacuum tube power amplifiers occupying a highly specialized 
segment of the high fidelity market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commission staff consulted the October, 1997 issue of Audio 
magazine to obtain the manufacturer's rating of total harmonic 
distortion for all receivers and separate power amplifiers included 
in the magazine's annual equipment directory. The published ratings 
show no receivers with total harmonic distortion exceeding one 
percent. Among separate power amplifiers, 11 models from 5 
manufacturers, out of approximately 1000 models from nearly 200 
manufacturers, carry total harmonic distortion ratings exceeding one 
percent. These 11 models range in price from $550 to $12,345. The 
average price of the 11 models is about $3,700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
    It appears that improvements in amplifier technology since the 
Rule's promulgation in 1974 have reduced the benefits to consumers of 
disclosure in media advertising of total rated harmonic distortion. It 
also appears that an insufficient number of consumers would understand 
the meaning and significance of the remaining triggered disclosures 
concerning power bandwidth and impedance to justify their publication 
in media advertising. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should initiate a rulemaking to amend the Rule 
to exempt media advertising, including advertising on the Internet, 
from disclosure of total rated harmonic distortion and the associated 
power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim is 
made.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\The record indicates, however, that maximum harmonic 
distortion ratings in excess of one percent are not sufficiently 
prevalent that the use of this figure as a threshold to govern 
disclosure requirements in media advertising would be meaningful. 
Thus, the suggested amendment does not limit the exemption to a 
maximum harmonic distortion rating of one percent or less, as 
previously proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to ensure that consumers would not be misled by 
noncomparable power output claims that were based on differing 
impedance ratings, the exemption for media advertising would be 
conditioned on the requirement that the primary power output 
specification disclosed in any media advertising be the manufacturer's 
rated minimum sine wave continuous average power output, per channel 
(such as might be true for certain amplifiers used in self-powered 
speaker systems), at an impedance of 8 ohms, or, if the amplifier is 
not designed for an 8-ohm load impedance, at the impedance for which 
the amplifier is primarily designed.
    All other power output claims currently subject to the Rule, 
however, including those appearing in manufacturer specification sheets 
that are either in print or reproduced on the Internet, would continue 
to trigger the requirement that the seller provide the full complement 
of disclosures concerning power bandwidth, maximum harmonic distortion, 
and impedance, so that interested consumers could obtain this 
information prior to purchase.

3. Rule Coverage of Self-Powered Loudspeakers for Use in the Home

a. Background
    When the FRN was published, the Rule did not specifically mention 
self-powered speakers as an example of sound amplification equipment 
manufactured or sold for home entertainment purposes. In the FRN, the 
Commission solicited comment on its tentative conclusion that the Rule 
covers: (A) self-powered speakers for use with (i) home computers, (ii) 
home sound systems, (iii) home multimedia systems; and (B) other sound 
power amplification equipment for home computers. The Commission also 
solicited comment on additional issues related to coverage of self-
powered speakers under the Rule, including whether the standard test 
conditions set out in the Rule are appropriate for such equipment.
    In a Notice of Final Action published separately in this Federal 
Register, the Commission discusses the comments relating to the 
threshold question of Rule coverage of self-powered speakers, and 
issues a non-substantive amendment clarifying that the Rule applies to 
self-powered loudspeakers for use in the home.
    The Commission received two comments that addressed the additional 
issue of whether or not the Rule's standard test conditions are 
appropriate for self-powered speakers. The principal trade association 
of the U.S. electronics industry (CEMA) supported applying the Rule to 
self-powered speakers. CEMA recommended, however, that the

[[Page 37240]]

Rule be amended at a future date to incorporate a standard for 
measuring the volume of sound that a powered speaker can deliver into 
the listening environment, rather than the power that the amplifier can 
deliver to the speaker. This commenter stated that a voluntary industry 
standard for measuring the loudness of powered speakers was currently 
under development and could be incorporated into the Rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CEMA, (5), p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second commenter (Labtec) expressed concern that the Rule's 
current testing protocol is not compatible with combination speaker 
systems consisting of two or more amplifiers. For this reason, the 
commenter proposed that the Commission amend the Rule to specify a 
separate testing protocol and disclosure format for three-piece 
multimedia speaker systems comprised of a subwoofer and two or more 
satellite speakers that are powered by separate amplifiers that share a 
common power supply.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Labtec, (6), p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to this commenter, the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers 
in such combination systems are usually of different wattage per 
channel and are dedicated to different frequency bandwidths. The 
commenter stated further that if the Rule were interpreted to mean that 
power tests for these systems be conducted over the entire frequency 
bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz, with all channels of all amplifiers 
driven simultaneously, limitations in the common power supply would 
lower the maximum power output of the subwoofer and satellite 
amplifiers at test frequencies near the crossover frequency, where both 
sets of amplifiers would be operating near full capacity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also stated that the most conservative industry 
practice today is to measure the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers 
separately, and to disclose the maximum per-channel continuous power 
output of each amplifier over the bandwidth for which it was designed 
to operate. In this test protocol, the commenter stated, the two 
channels of the satellite amplifier are driven simultaneously, but 
without the subwoofer amplifier in operation. Similarly, the test for 
the subwoofer amplifier are conducted alone, with the satellite 
amplifier at idle. These ratings are then disclosed in a format such 
as: ``20 watts RMS subwoofer, 10 watts RMS satellite (5w + 5w).'' 
According to the commenter, such power ratings overstate somewhat the 
maximum per-channel power capability of each amplifier when all 
channels of both amplifiers are driven simultaneously at the crossover 
frequency.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter recommended that the Rule be amended to specify that 
power rating tests for combination subwoofer-satellite power speaker 
systems be conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of 
all amplifiers operating simultaneously. The comment also suggested 
that manufacturers be allowed to publish the combined power output of 
the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers at this frequency, together with 
the individual per-channel output of each amplifier, e.g., ``25 watts 
total RMS power (17w+4w+4w) into 4 ohms @ 150 Hz with less than 1% 
THD.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
    As discussed in the Notice of Final Action published separately in 
this Federal Register, the Commission has concluded that Rule coverage 
of self-powered speaker equipment for use in the home should not be 
delayed until an industry standard is developed for measuring and 
disclosing the volume of sound that such speaker systems can produce in 
the listening environment.
    The Commission has also tentatively determined on the basis of the 
Rule review record that Sec. 432.2(a)(2) of the Rule does not currently 
provide adequate guidance concerning the manner in which power ratings 
for combination subwoofer and satellite self-powered speaker systems 
should be conducted. Specifically, it may be insufficiently clear 
whether the Rule's stipulation that power measurements be made ``with 
all associated channels fully driven to rated per channel power'' 
requires manufacturers to conduct power ratings with all channels of 
both the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers driven simultaneously, or 
whether the Rule allows manufacturers of such equipment to test the 
subwoofer and satellite amplifiers separately.
    The Commission is not prepared at this time to recommend that the 
Rule be amended to specify that per-channel power ratings for self-
powered combination subwoofer and satellite speaker systems be 
conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of all 
amplifiers operating simultaneously, as proposed by Labtec. The 
Commission does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that in-home 
use, under even strenuous conditions, typically would place maximum 
continuous power demands simultaneously on both the subwoofer and 
satellite amplifiers at the crossover frequency. Rather, such demands 
are more likely to occur in portions of the audio spectrum that would 
be assigned primarily either to the subwoofer amplifier or the 
satellite amplifier.
    The Commission therefore believes that the most appropriate 
application of the Rule to self-powered subwoofer-satellite 
combinations would be to require simultaneous operation only of those 
channels dedicated to the same portion of the audio frequency spectrum. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether to initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to clarify the Amplifier Rule by amending 
Sec. 432.2 to include a note stating that, for self-powered combination 
speaker systems that employ two or more amplifiers dedicated to 
different portions of the audio frequency spectrum, only those channels 
dedicated to the same audio frequency spectrum need be fully driven to 
rated per channel power under paragraph 432.2(a)(2).

4. Rule Coverage of Automotive Sound Amplification Products

a. Background
    The scope of the Amplifier Rule currently is limited to sound power 
amplification equipment intended for home entertainment purposes. The 
Rule does not apply to automotive sound amplification products. The 
Commission noted that promotional materials for these products appear 
to contain power output claims based on a variety of rating procedures. 
The Commission requested comment on the types of power rating and 
disclosure protocols currently used by manufacturers of automotive 
sound amplification products, and whether any of the sound power claims 
being made in connection with the sale and advertising of such 
equipment inhibit meaningful comparisons of performance attributes by 
consumers. The Commission also solicited examples of such claims and 
information establishing the scope and seriousness of the problem. 
Finally, the Commission asked for comment on what, if any, form of 
action was needed to increase the ability of consumers to make 
meaningful product comparisons in this industry.
    The Commission received three comments on these issues. The 
commenters stated that power claims made for automotive sound 
amplification equipment frequently are higher than the corresponding 
RMS continuous power rating specified in the

[[Page 37241]]

Rule. The commenters recommended that the Rule be extended to cover 
automotive sound amplification equipment.\16\ None of the commenters, 
however, provided any specific examples of claims that might mislead 
consumers and lead to poor purchase decisions. Nor was any information 
provided on the prevalence or technical basis for claims that differ 
from the corresponding continuous power output rating used in the Rule. 
Finally, no evidence was provided indicating that the various power 
ratings currently in use are inhibiting meaningful comparisons by 
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Fulmer, (2), p. 1; Phillips, (1), p. 1; CEMA, (5), p. 
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission staff, prior to the issuance of the FRN, conducted a 
brief examination of current power output claims for automotive stereo 
equipment.\17\ This examination suggests that manufacturers of original 
equipment and aftermarket dashboard radio-cassette or radio-CD players 
generally employ a rating system that yields a ``peak'' power output 
specification approximately twice as high as the continuous rating. 
Staff found no evidence, however, that this rating system misrepresents 
the relative power output of competing amplifiers, or that any 
confusion resulting from the system has led to a breakdown in the 
correspondence between the prices charged for competing amplifiers and 
their power output capabilities. Staff's inquiry also indicates that 
the FTC continuous rating protocol is the most common method of 
measuring the power output of specialized and generally more expensive 
aftermarket automotive sound reproduction equipment, such as separate 
power amplifiers and powered subwoofers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Staff's inquiry included visits to several area auto stereo 
dealers, an inspection of retailer ads in the Washington Post, and 
an analysis of power output specifications published in recent 
catalogues for Crutchfield, a large mail-order retailer of auto 
stereo equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
    The Rule review record suggests that certain power output ratings 
for automotive sound amplification equipment may differ from the 
ratings that would be obtained using a continuous power testing 
procedure similar to that specified in the Rule. As indicated, the 
record contains no evidence regarding whether such power output claims 
could impede the ability of consumers to make meaningful comparisons, 
or that the various ratings systems currently in use have significantly 
reduced the correspondence between the prices charged for competing 
auto sound amplification equipment and the power output of this 
equipment. In addition, staff's inquiry did not indicate that consumers 
may currently pay more for amplification equipment that is actually 
less powerful, or no more powerful, than competing equipment advertised 
with power disclosures that are derived using more rigorous test 
procedures. Thus, the record and Commission staff's inquiry uncovered 
no basis for concluding that consumers currently are unable to make 
meaningful comparisons in the automotive sound reproduction market. The 
Commission has concluded, therefore, that the existence of dissimilar 
power output rating methods by itself does not provide a sufficient 
showing of probable consumer injury to justify again seeking comment on 
this issue in this APNR.

Part C--Request for Comments

    Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or 
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's 
consideration of whether to publish an NPR initiating a rulemaking 
proceeding to consider the previously discussed proposed amendments to 
the Amplifier Rule. The Commission requests that factual data upon 
which the comments are based be submitted with the comments. In 
addition to the issues raised above, the Commission solicits public 
comment on the specific questions identified below. These questions are 
designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a 
limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted. 
After considering the responses to this ANPR, if the Commission decides 
to commence a rulemaking proceeding, it must, under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12, determine whether the proposed 
amendments would have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small businesses. The Commission includes in this ANPR questions that 
will assist it in making such analysis.
    The written comments submitted will be available for public 
inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 
552, and Commission regulations on normal business days from 8:30 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. at the Federal Trade Commission, 6th St. and Pennsylvania 
Ave., N.W., Room 130, Washington, D.C. 20580.

Questions

A. Section 432.3(c) Preconditioning Requirement

    (1) Should the Commission amend the Rule to reduce the 
preconditioning power output requirement from one-third of rated power 
to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated power?

B. Exemption From Required Disclosures

    (2) Have post-1974 improvements in amplifier design and consequent 
reductions in typical levels of total harmonic distortion reduced the 
benefit to consumers of disclosure of rated total harmonic distortion 
in media advertising that contains a power output claim?
    (3) Should the Commission amend the Rule to exempt disclosure of 
total rated harmonic distortion and the associated power bandwidth and 
impedance ratings when a power output claim is made in media 
advertising?
    (4) If the Commission amends the rule to allow the above exemption, 
should this exemption be conditioned on the requirement that the 
primary power output specification disclosed in any media advertising 
be the manufacturer's rated minimum sine wave continuous average power 
output, per channel, at an impedance of 8 ohms, or, if the amplifier is 
not designed primarily for an 8-ohm impedance, at the impedance for 
which the amplifier is primarily designed?

C. Rule Coverage of Self-Powered Loudspeakers for Use in the Home

    (5) Should the Commission clarify the Rule to specify that, for 
self-powered combination speaker systems that employ two or more 
amplifiers dedicated to different portions of the audio frequency 
spectrum, only those channels dedicated to the same audio frequency 
spectrum need be fully driven to rated per channel power under 
Sec. 432.2(a)(2)? If not, should the Commission amend the Rule to 
specify that per-channel power ratings for such combination speaker 
systems be conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of 
all amplifiers operating simultaneously?

D. Economic Effect, If Any, of the Proposed Amendments

    (6) What costs and benefits to consumers and businesses, including 
manufacturers, retailers, or other sellers, would accrue from each of 
the three proposed Rule amendments?
    (7) Would any of the proposed Rule amendments have a significant

[[Page 37242]]

economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses?
    (8) Can that impact be quantified?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 432

    Amplifiers, Electronic products, Home entertainment products, Trade 
practices.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18204 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M