[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]