[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