[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58671-58675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29287]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305


Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and 
Water Use of Certain Home Applicances and Other Products Required Under 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``the Commission'') proposes 
amending Appendix F to its Appliance Labeling Rule (``the Rule'') to 
eliminate the ``Front-Loading'' and ``Top-Loading'' sub-categories for 
clothes washers.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until December 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal 
Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 
Washington, DC 20580. Comments about this proposed amendment to the 
Appliance Labeling Rule should be identified as: ``Appliance Labeling 
Rule Clothes Washer Categories, 16 CFR Part 305--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Mills, Attorney, Division of 
Enforcement, Rm 4616, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580 
(202-326-3035).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule

    The Commission issued the Appliance Labeling Rule on November 19, 
1979, pursuant to a directive in section 324 of Title III of the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6294 (``EPCA''). The 
Rule requires manufacturers to disclose energy information about major 
household appliances to enable consumers purchasing appliances to 
compare the energy use or efficiency of competing models. When 
published, the Rule applied to eight appliance categories: 
Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water 
heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and furnaces. Since 
then, the Commission has expanded the Rule's coverage five times: in 
1987 (central air conditioners, heat pumps, and certain new types of 
furnaces, 52 FR 46888 (Dec. 10, 1987)); 1989 (fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989)); 1993 (certain plumbing products, 
58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993)); and twice in 1994 (certain lighting 
products, 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994)), and pool heaters and certain 
other types of water heaters (59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994)).
    Manufacturers of all covered appliances must disclose specific 
energy consumption or efficiency information at the point of sale in 
the form of an ``EnergyGuide'' label affixed to the covered product. 
The information on the EnergyGuide also must appear in catalogs from 
which covered products can be ordered. Manufacturers must derive the 
information from standardized tests that EPCA directs the Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') to promulgate. 42 U.S.C. 6293. Manufacturers of 
furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps also either must 
provide fact sheets showing additional cost information or be listed in 
an industry directory that shows the cost information for their 
products. Required labels for appliances and required fact sheets for 
heating and cooling equipment must include a highlighted energy 
consumption or efficiency disclosure and a ``range of comparability,'' 
which appears as a bar on the label below the main energy use or 
efficiency figure, that shows the highest and lowest energy consumption 
or efficiencies for all similar appliance models. Labels for clothes 
washers and some other appliance products also must disclose estimated 
annual operating cost based on a specified national average cost for 
the fuel the appliances use.

B. Ranges of Comparability and the Categories in Appendix F

    The ``range of comparability'' on the EnergyGuide is intended to 
enable consumers to compare the energy consumption or efficiency of the 
other models (perhaps competing brands) in the marketplace that are 
similar to the labeled model they are considering. Section 305.8(b) of 
the Rule, 16 CFR 305.8(b), requires manufacturers to report annually 
(by specified dates for each product type) the estimated annual energy 
consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived 
from the DOE test procedures. To keep the required information on 
labels consistent with these changes, the Commission publishes new 
range figures (but not more often than annually) for manufacturers to 
use on labels if an analysis of the reported information indicates that 
the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than 15%. 
16 CFR 305.10. Otherwise, the Commission publishes a statement that the 
prior ranges remain in effect for the next year.
    Each category of the products covered by the Rule is divided to 
some extent into sub-categories for purposes of the ranges of 
comparability. These subcategories, which are the same as those 
developed by DOE in connection with its efficiency standards 
program,1 are based on fuel type, size, and/or functional 
features, depending on the type of product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295, directs DOE to develop 
efficiency standards for major household appliances to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency for residential appliances 
that is technologically feasible and economically justified. As 
amended, the statute itself sets the initial national standards for 
appliances and establishes a schedule for regular DOE review of the 
standards for each product category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Commission published the Rule in 1979, the clothes washer 
category in Appendix F was divided into the sub-categories ``Standard'' 
and

[[Page 58672]]

``Compact'' only. 44 FR 66466, 66486 (Nov. 19, 1979). These sub-
categories stayed in effect until 1994, when the Commission amended 
Appendix F in response to comments received in connection with a 
comprehensive review of the Rule. The amendment to Appendix F created 
the additional subdivisions of ``Top Loading'' and ``Front Loading'' 
that appear in the current Rule. In the Federal Register notice 
announcing the amendments that grew out of the review, the Commission 
discussed the comments on clothes washer subcategories and its reasons 
for the amendment to Appendix F:

    Four comments * * * suggested changing the subcategories for 
clothes washers by adding two further subdivisions--horizontal axis 
and vertical axis. In support, AHAM (the Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers, a trade association of appliance 
manufacturers) stated that the technologies of the two proposed 
subdivisions are different and that consumers interested in the 
horizontal axis market niche should be able to compare products 
within that subdivision.
    Horizontal axis clothes washers (which are generally front-
loading) are significantly more energy-efficient than vertical axis 
washers (generally top-loading). Because the typical door 
configurations for these products are different, consumers may shop 
for only one configuration, and information respecting the energy 
usage of products having the other configuration may not be useful. 
For example, consumers wanting to stack a clothes dryer on top of 
their washer to conserve space would only be interested in a front 
loading washer. The Commission finds, therefore, that separate 
ranges of comparability for these products would benefit consumers. 
Accordingly, the Commission is * * * amending the sub-categories for 
clothes washers to reflect a further subdivision into top-loading 
and front-loading models. See Appendix F--Clothes Washers.
    59 FR 34014, 34019 (July 1, 1994).

C. CEE's Petition

    The Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Inc. (``CEE'') 2 
has petitioned the Commission to amend the Rule by changing the clothes 
washer category in Appendix F to eliminate the ``Front-Loading'' and 
``Top-Loading'' subdivisions of the ``Standard'' and ``Compact'' sub-
categories. In its petition, CEE stated that, since 1994, it has 
promoted the manufacture of and consumer demand for high-efficiency 
clothes washers through its High-efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative. 
CEE asserted that, because of the recent introduction of high-
efficiency products from major domestic manufacturers, it is at a 
critical point in its efforts to promote high-efficiency clothes 
washers, and its members have committed to significant expansions of 
their consumer-targeted campaigns to promote the purchase of these 
products. CEE believes that Appendix F to the Rule confuses consumers 
and undermines CEE's and its members' efforts to promote high-
efficiency clothes washers. In its petition, CEE indicates that 
eliminating the ``Front-Loading'' and ``Top-Loading'' subdivisions of 
the ``Standard'' and ``Compact'' sub-categories will remedy these 
concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ According to its Mission Statement, CEE is a non-profit, 
public benefit corporation that expands national markets for super-
efficient technologies, using market transformation strategies. Its 
members include more than 40 electric and gas utilities, public 
interest groups, research and development organizations, and state 
energy offices. Major support is provided to CEE by DOE and the 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEE asserts that, since the Commission's 1994 statement in the 
Federal Register, the clothes washer market has changed, and front-
loading washers are no longer merely a niche product. According to CEE, 
consumer research in the Northwest has shown that a significant 
proportion of consumers who were shopping for top-loading machines were 
also interested in, and had looked at, front-loading models, and that 
many were ready to pay a premium for the front-loading models. The 
research showed that many consumers could be persuaded to purchase 
front-loading washers at the point of sale, suggesting that they did 
not have pre-determined reasons in mind for buying a front-loading 
model when they began their search.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A summary by CEE of the results of the intercept interviews 
and surveys CEE cited in its petition has been placed on the public 
rulemaking record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEE explains that, because the most highly efficient clothes 
washers are all front-loading,4 an EnergyGuide comparison 
only among front-loading models provides an incomplete picture of the 
efficiencies available in the clothes washer market. According to the 
petition, the least efficient of the high-efficiency front-loading 
clothes washers, will, of necessity, appear at the ``Uses Most Energy'' 
end of the comparability range on the label attached to it, even though 
it consumes only half the energy that the average top-loading model 
does. This situation, according to CEE, confuses consumers and creates 
the erroneous impression that these highly-efficient products (when 
compared to top-loading models) are high energy users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ There is an exception, mentioned later in CEE's petition: 
One manufacturer makes a horizontal-axis, highly efficient washer 
that loads from the top and is thus classified as a ``Top Loading'' 
model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEE also asserts that the current front-loading and top-loading 
subdivisions are particularly problematical in connection with the DOE/
EPA Energy Star Program.5 Under that Program, all front-
loading clothes washers produced by manufacturers participating in the 
Program will qualify for the Energy Star logo. This means that the 
label on the least energy efficient of these highly efficient products 
will indicate that the product ``Uses Most Energy'' while also bearing 
the Energy Star endorsement. CEE believes that this situation will 
create consumer confusion and undermine the credibility of both the 
EnergyGuide and Energy Star Programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Commission staff have been working with DOE and EPA staff to 
help them implement statutory directives to promote high-efficiency 
household appliances in the marketplace. The resulting joint effort 
is called the ``Energy Star'' Program, which defines what 
constitutes a high-efficiency product and identifies products that 
qualify for the designation. A product's qualification for the 
Program is indicated by the Energy Star logo, currently either on 
the product or a separate Energy Star label. A proposal is under 
consideration to permit manufacturers of qualifying appliances to 
place the Energy Star logo on the Appliance Labeling Rule 
EnergyGuides attached to the products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, CEE points out that the Canadian EnerGuide appliance 
labeling program (which is very similar to the EnergyGuide Program) 
does not distinguish between front-loading and top-loading clothes 
washers for range purposes. The Canadian Program divides the clothes 
washer category into only the ``Compact'' and ``Standard'' sub-
categories.
    Finally, CEE asserts that technological advances in the clothes 
washer industry have begun to soften the distinction between the front-
loading and top-loading subdivisions. As examples, CEE cites the Maytag 
Neptune model, which has a basket that operates on an axis that is 15 
degrees off of vertical and an opening mounted on a plane angled 
between the top and front of the machine (Maytag classifies this as a 
front-loading model), and the Staber Industries horizontal axis model 
that loads from the top (and is thus a top-loading model). CEE 
maintains that, perhaps in recognition of this incipient blurring of 
the distinction between the subdivisions, DOE is considering 
eliminating the separate classes from its testing and standards 
program. CEE urges that the Commission grant its petition to help 
achieve consistency on this issue at the federal level.

II. Discussion

A. Market Changes

    The market for clothes washers has changed since the Commission

[[Page 58673]]

promulgated the ``Front-loading'' and ``Top-loading'' subdivisions. 
While in 1993-94 front-loading machines may merely have been a 
``niche'' product, as suggested by AHAM's comment (referenced in I.B., 
above), the availability of and technology for these products have 
advanced considerably since that time.6 There are currently 
ten front-loading models out of the total of 228 models that were 
reported to the Commission in March of this year, compared to the five 
models offered in 1993-94. CEE's research suggests that a significant 
proportion of consumers now shopping for clothes washers are receptive 
to the idea of buying a more efficient front-loading machine--even if 
they began by looking for a top-loading model. This, coupled with the 
significant increase in availability of front-loading models, suggests 
that eliminating the distinction between the two subdivisions on labels 
could result in more purchases of the more efficient products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These products may have been considered a niche market in 
part because they were so much more expensive than top-loading 
models and because they may have been favored by consumers with 
limited space looking for stackable models. Although front-loading 
models are on average still more expensive than top-loading, the 
price differential is now much smaller. See ``A New Spin on Clothes 
Washers,'' Consumer Reports (July 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are other indications that the current ``Front-loading'' and 
``Top-loading'' subdivisions may be causing confusion among consumers 
shopping for clothes washers. Commission staff has received two 
letters, dated April 27, 1998, and May 19, 1998, in support of CEE's 
petition from the Office of Energy of the Oregon Department of Consumer 
and Business Services (``Oregon Energy Office,'' or 
``OEO'').7 In the April 27 letter, the Oregon Energy Office 
asserts that there is no reason for or benefit from leaving the 
subdivisions of the clothes washer category as they are. In the May 19 
letter, OEO reiterates its support, noting the specific example of the 
Maytag Neptune model and stating that DOE does not consider loading 
method in its clothes washer test procedure and is considering phasing 
the top-loading and front-loading subdivisions out of the energy 
standards for the clothes washer product category. In both letters, the 
Oregon Energy Office expresses concern that consumers are confused by 
the current subdivisions and that such confusion undermines consumer 
confidence in the EnergyGuide itself, which, according to OEO, has been 
rising steadily since the Rule was promulgated in 1979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These two letters have been placed on the public rulemaking 
record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This consumer confusion may occur because, although the label for 
clothes washers states that ``Only standard size, front-loading (or 
top-loading) clothes washers are used in this scale,'' not all 
consumers may notice the disclosure. Consumers looking at top-loading 
machines may not realize how much more efficient front-loading models 
are, and may not even consider purchasing a front-loading model simply 
because the energy consumption figures for front-loading machines are 
not included in the ranges appearing on labels for top-loading models. 
And, consumers shopping for front-loading machines may get the 
incorrect impression that some of the most efficient models (front-
loading) on the market are not really highly energy efficient, only 
because they are being compared unfavorably to other even higher-
efficiency models (also front-loading), instead of to the less 
efficient top-loading models. Finally, because some front-loading 
clothes washers that have qualified for the Energy Star logo are shown 
on the EnergyGuide to be at or near the ``Uses Most Energy'' end of the 
comparability bar, this may cause consumer confusion about the Energy 
Star Program.
    On the other hand, without the subdivisions, it may be more 
difficult for consumers to determine the range of energy use 
possibilities for each type of washer. Thus, for a consumer who, 
because of price or some other reason, wishes to purchase a top-loading 
washer, the proposed amendment would make it more difficult to 
determine which top-loading machine achieves the highest energy 
efficiency possible for a top-loader. Although a given retail outlet 
will likely have several brands and models for comparison, and such a 
consumer would be able to find the most efficient top-loader in the 
store by comparing EnergyGuides, the consumer still would not know 
whether he should seek other choices, say, by going to another 
retailer. Consumers' search costs should not be significantly 
increased, however, because consumers already do not know the range of 
possibilities for other characteristics (such as price) of the washer, 
and thus already need to search various retailers.

B. The DOE Energy Conservation Standards and Possible Changes to the 
DOE Test Procedure

    DOE has announced that it may eliminate any reference to front-
loading or top-loading (or horizontal-or vertical-axis) in its 
standards for clothes washers. In connection with its review of the 
energy and water consumption standards for clothes washers, DOE 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 14, 
1994, in which it indicated its intention to consider only two classes 
for the clothes washer category--``Compact'' and ``Standard.'' 59 FR 
56423, at 56425. Later in the review process, DOE issued a Draft Report 
on Design Options for Clothes Washers for use in a November 1996 DOE 
workshop in which DOE again proposed reducing the number of clothes 
washer categories to ``Compact'' and ``Standard.'' In July 1997, DOE 
published a draft Clothes Washer Rulemaking Framework, which DOE staff 
describes as a ``roadmap'' for the review process. In that document, 
DOE stated that it ``believes that there is no basis for maintaining 
separate classes for horizontal and vertical clothes 
washers.''8 Thus, when DOE completes its review of the 
clothes washer standards rule, it is reasonable to expect that DOE will 
no longer use the ``Front-loading'' and ``Top-loading'' (or 
``horizontal-axis'' and ``vertical-axis'') subdivisions to describe 
clothes washers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Although the current DOE test procedure for clothes washers 
(``Appendix J'') contains separate definitions for ``front-loader,'' 
``top-loader-horizontal-axis,'' and ``top-loader-vertical-axis'' 
clothes washers, it does not materially distinguish between top-
loading or front-loading, or horizontal axis or vertical axis, in 
measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers. 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, Appendix J, 1.7, 1.23, and 1.24 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In an August 14, 1998 letter to Commission staff, DOE's Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy asked that the 
Commission consider eliminating the top-loading and front-loading 
subcategories for clothes washers because they are causing consumer 
confusion about washer efficiency and appear to be undermining the 
Energy Star Program's credibility. The Assistant Secretary also stated 
that, although the amendments to DOE's rules will not take effect for 
several years, DOE believes ``that it is in the consumer's best 
interest for FTC to adopt the new classifications for labeling purposes 
as soon as possible.'' Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether, if the proposed amendment were adopted, it should postpone the 
effective date to coincide with DOE's changes, or whether the proposed 
amendment should be issued and effective regardless of the timing of 
any changes regarding clothes washer categories that DOE may make to 
its standards rule.

[[Page 58674]]

C. The Canadian EnerGuide Program Does Not Distinguish Between ``Top-
Loading'' and ``Front Loading''

    Over the past few years, the Commission has taken action to 
harmonize the Rule's labeling requirements with those of the EnerGuide 
Program in accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(``NAFTA'') goals of reducing or eliminating non-tariff barriers to 
trade (e.g., labeling requirements). The Commission staff has worked 
with staff at Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') since 1992 to 
harmonize the two countries'' appliance labeling programs as much as 
possible (e.g., the Commission changed the primary energy use 
descriptor for most appliances from estimated annual operating cost to 
kiloWatt-hours per year (the descriptor used in the EnerGuide Program), 
and simplified the EnergyGuide by removing the cost grids, making it 
more similar to the EnerGuide. 59 FR 34014 (July 1, 1994)).9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In addition, in 1996, the Commission amended the Rule to 
permit Canada's EnerGuide, as well as Mexico's energy label, to be 
placed ``directly adjoining'' the Rule's required ``EnergyGuide'' 
label. Previously the Rule prohibited the affixation of non-required 
information ``on or directly adjoining'' the EnergyGuide. 61 FR 
33651 (June 28, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Canadian EnerGuide Program does not divide the ``Standard'' and 
``Compact'' clothes washer sub-categories further into top-loading and 
front-loading (or horizontal-axis and vertical-axis) 
subdivisions.10 Thus, eliminating the ``Top-loading'' and 
``Front-loading'' subdivisions also would have the salutary effect of 
promoting international harmonization and furthering the NAFTA goal of 
making the standards-related measures of the treaty signatories 
compatible, thereby facilitating trade among the parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to NRCan staff, this is because the definition of 
``clothes washer'' in the Canadian regulations encompasses both top-
loading and front-loading technologies, and the rulemaking staff saw 
no reason for further differentiation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

A. General Information for Commenters

    The Commission requests interested persons to submit written 
comments on any issue of fact, law or policy that may bear upon the 
proposed amendment. Although the Commission welcomes comments on any 
aspect of the proposed amendment, the Commission is particularly 
interested in comments on the questions listed below. All written 
comments should state clearly the question or issue that the commenter 
wishes to address.
    The Commission requests that commenters provide representative 
factual data in support of their comments. Individual firms' 
experiences are relevant to the extent they typify industry experience 
in general or the experience of similar-sized firms. Comments opposing 
the proposed amendment should, if possible, suggest specific 
alternatives. Proposals for alternatives to the proposed amendment 
should include reasons and data that indicate why the alternatives 
would better serve the requirements of the Appliance Labeling Rule. 
Comments should be supported by a full discussion of all the relevant 
facts and/or be based on firsthand knowledge, personal experience, or 
general understanding of the particular issues addressed.
    CEE's March 5, 1998 petition, its research results, the letters 
from the Oregon Energy Office, and written comments submitted will be 
available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of 
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, where applicable, and Commission 
regulations on normal business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the 
Federal Trade Commission, 6th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 130, 
Washington, DC 20580.

B. Questions for Comment

    The Commission is particularly interested in comments addressing 
the following questions and issues:
    1. What is the effect of the current ``Top-Loading'' and ``Front-
Loading'' subdivisions of the ``Standard'' and ``Compact'' 
subcategories for clothes washers on consumers'' ability to choose the 
most energy efficient model that will fill their clothes washing needs?
    2. To what extent do consumers looking for a new clothes washer 
shop exclusively for either a top-loading or a front-loading model? To 
what extent do they shop without looking specifically for either type 
of washer?
    3. What would be the economic impact on manufacturers of the 
proposed amendment?
    4. What would be the benefits of the proposed amendment? Who would 
receive those benefits? What would be the costs of the proposed 
amendment? Who would incur those costs?
    5. What would be the benefits and economic impact of the proposed 
amendment on small businesses?
    6. If the Commission eliminates the current ``Top-Loading'' and 
``Front-Loading'' subdivisions from Appendix F, should the only 
remaining descriptors of clothes washer capacity be ``Standard'' and 
``Compact,'' or should there be additional descriptors? For example, 
should the Commission require that the internal tub volume of clothes 
washers, in cubic feet or in gallons (or both), also be required on 
labels for clothes washers?
    7. If DOE were to amend its clothes washer standards rule as 
discussed in II.B., above, and the Commission were to adopt the 
amendment proposed today, should the Commission postpone the effective 
date to coincide with DOE's changes, or should it issue and make 
effective the proposed amendment regardless of the timing of any 
changes in clothes washer categories that DOE may make to its standards 
rule?

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This notice does not contain a regulatory analysis under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 603-604, because the 
Commission believes that the proposed amendment, if adopted, would not 
have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605. The proposed amendment would not impose any 
new requirements on manufacturers of clothes washers. Instead, it would 
require less information than is currently required on labels that 
clothes washer manufacturers already must affix to their products. The 
Commission, therefore, believes that the impact of the proposed 
amendment on all entities within the affected industry, if any, would 
be de minimis.
    In light of the above, the Commission certifies, pursuant to 
section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that the proposed amendment would 
not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. To ensure that no substantial economic impact is 
being overlooked, however, the Commission solicits comments concerning 
the effects of the proposed amendment, including any benefits and 
burdens on manufacturers or consumers and the extent of those benefits 
and burdens, beyond those imposed or conferred by the current Rule, 
that the proposed amendment would have on manufacturers, retailers, or 
other sellers. The Commission is particularly interested in comments 
regarding the effects of the proposed amendment on small businesses. 
After reviewing any comments received, the Commission will determine 
whether it is necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis if it determines to promulgate the amendment.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 
requires

[[Page 58675]]

government agencies, before promulgating rules or other regulations 
that require ``collections of information'' (i.e., recordkeeping, 
reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements), to obtain approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''), 44 U.S.C. 3502. The 
Commission currently has OMB clearance for the Rule's information 
collection requirements (OMB No. 3084-0069). The proposed amendment 
would not impose any new information collection requirements. To ensure 
that no additional burden has been overlooked, however, the Commission 
seeks public comment on what, if any, additional information collection 
burden the proposed amendment may impose.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Pursuant to Rule 1.18(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 
CFR 1.18(c) (1997), communications with respect to the merits of this 
proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's 
advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the 
following treatment. Written communications, including written 
communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to 
the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications, 
not including oral communications from members of Congress, are 
permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim 
or summarized, at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner's 
advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and are promptly 
placed on the public record, together with any written communications 
and summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral 
communications. Oral communications from members of Congress shall be 
transcribed or summarized, at the discretion of the Commissioner or 
Commissioner's advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and 
promptly placed on the public record, together with any written 
communications and summaries of any oral communications relating to 
such oral communications.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

    Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

VII. Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
title 16, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as follows:

PART 305--RULE CONCERNING DISCLOSURES REGARDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION 
AND WATER USE OF CERTAIN HOME APPLIANCE AND OTHER PRODUCTS REQUIRED 
UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (``APPLIANCE LABELING 
RULE'')

    1. The authority for part 305 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

    2. Appendix F to part 305--Clothes Washers is revised to read as 
follows:

Appendix F To Part 305--Clothes Washers

Range Information

    ``Compact'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub 
capacity of less than 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water.
    ``Standard'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub 
capacity of 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water or more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Range of Estimated
                                                      Annual Energy
                   Capacity                      Consumption  (kWh/yr.)
                                               -------------------------
                                                    Low          High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact.......................................          592          607
Standard......................................          241         1231
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-29287 Filed 10-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P