[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64399-64405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23063]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

RIN 3084-AB15


Energy Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) seeks public 
comment on potential amendments to the Energy Labeling Rule (Rule), 
including energy labels for several new consumer product categories, 
and other possible amendments to improve the Rule's effectiveness and 
reduce unnecessary burdens.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Energy Labeling Rule 
ANPR, Matter No. R611004'' on your comment, and file your comment 
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, by following the instructions 
on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, 
mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, 
Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex J), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome (202-326-2889), 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The Commission seeks comment on amendments to its existing Energy 
Labeling Rule at 16 CFR part 305. As discussed below, the Commission 
specifically seeks comment on whether it should add new consumer 
product categories to the labeling program, increase the availability 
of online labels and other energy information, and streamline existing 
requirements. The Commission also seeks comment on

[[Page 64400]]

whether any Rule changes are necessary to ensure the Rule's labeling 
provisions are consistent with current consumer shopping behavior. 
Finally, the ANPR seeks comment on whether the Commission should amend 
the Rule to: (1) modify its label content and format, (2) require links 
to online Lighting Facts labels consistent with current EnergyGuide 
requirements, (3) update the electricity cost figure on the Lighting 
Facts and ceiling fan labels, (4) update the refrigerator and clothes 
washer labels to remove dated information about test procedures, and 
(5) ensure the Rule's consistency with Department of Energy (DOE) 
requirements.

II. Background

    The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule in 1979,\1\ pursuant 
to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA).\2\ The Rule 
requires energy labeling for major home appliances and other consumer 
products to help consumers compare the energy usage and costs of 
competing models. It also contains labeling requirements for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water 
heaters, clothes washers, room and portable air conditioners, furnaces, 
central air conditioners, heat pumps, plumbing products, lighting 
products, ceiling fans, and televisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979).
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the Department of Energy 
(DOE) to develop test procedures that measure how much energy 
appliances use, and to determine the representative average cost a 
consumer pays for different types of energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule requires manufacturers to attach yellow EnergyGuide labels 
to many covered products and prohibits retailers from removing these 
labels or rendering them illegible. In addition, it directs sellers, 
including retailers, to post label information on websites and in paper 
catalogs from which consumers can order products. EnergyGuide labels 
for most covered products contain three main disclosures: estimated 
annual energy cost, a product's energy consumption or energy efficiency 
rating as determined by DOE test procedures, and a comparability range 
displaying the highest and lowest energy costs or efficiency ratings 
for all similar models. The Rule requires marketers to use national 
average costs for applicable energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural 
gas, or oil), as calculated by DOE in all cost calculations. Under the 
Rule, the Commission periodically updates comparability range and 
annual energy cost information based on manufacturer data submitted 
pursuant to the Rule's reporting requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 16 CFR 305.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Potential Rule Improvements

A. Potential Labels for New Product Categories

    The Commission seeks comment on whether to add several new product 
categories to the energy labeling program. Under EPCA, FTC has broad 
authority to require energy labels for consumer products. Specifically, 
in addition to products named in the statute or designated by DOE under 
that agency's authority, FTC may require labels pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6292(a)(6) for any consumer product as long as a label ``is likely to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.'' \4\ The Commission 
seeks comment on potential new labels for (1) the product categories 
listed below, and (2) any other consumer products that may be 
appropriate for energy labels. The Commission has not made any final 
determination regarding whether energy labels are warranted for any of 
the products discussed below at III.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6); see 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) (defining 
``consumer product''). For additional FTC labeling authority, see 42 
U.S.C. 6292(a)(1)-(5). For new product categories that DOE 
classifies as ``covered'' pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b), the FTC may 
prescribe labeling under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3) if (1) the Commission 
determines labeling will assist purchasers in making purchasing 
decisions, (2) DOE has prescribed test procedures for the product 
class, and (3) the Commission concludes labeling for the class is 
economically and technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering the product types listed below or other potential 
products, commenters should address any issues relevant to whether the 
Commission should require labeling for specific product categories. 
Typically, energy labels are most likely to help consumers when the 
underlying products use a substantial amount of energy and exhibit a 
range of annual energy costs across competing similar models. In 
addition to requiring energy use figures, the Commission has authority 
to require disclosures of additional information relating to energy 
consumption, including instructions for maintenance, use, or repair. 42 
U.S.C. 6294(c)(5). If no DOE test procedure exists for a particular 
product type, commenters should address whether competent and reliable 
test procedures exist that will yield adequate, consistent estimated 
energy use disclosures on the labels.
1. Questions About New Labels
    The Commission invites commenters to provide information and views 
on the following issues for the products listed below, as well as any 
other consumer products that may warrant energy labels. Where 
appropriate, commenters should provide evidence to support their views:

--Whether labels will assist consumers in their purchasing decisions, 
and why;
--The typical energy use and energy efficiency of various models on the 
market;
--Whether, and how, potential market changes will affect label benefits 
(e.g., expected changes in future models);
--The annual energy costs differences between similarly sized or 
otherwise competing models for each product category;
--What, if any, test procedures are or will likely be available to 
measure the estimated annual energy costs (or another useful energy 
metric) for the product category;
--What, if any, particular labeling burdens would apply to these 
products that are larger or different from currently labeled products;
--Any estimates (e.g., hours per year) for consumers' typical annual 
use of the product (i.e., ``duty cycle'') that can provide a basis for 
an annual energy cost estimate;
--Whether and how the energy use varies among similarly sized (or 
otherwise competing) models;
--Typical methods by which these products are sold (e.g., in retail 
stores packed in boxes, in stores displayed out of the boxes, online, 
through professional installers, etc.);
--How consumers typically shop (i.e., make purchasing decisions) for 
the products, and whether they shop online, in stores, or through some 
other means (e.g., discussions at home with installers);
--What, if any, subgroupings are appropriate for product categories by 
size, configuration, fuel used, or type (please provide specific 
information);
--Whether and why range information would be useful on the label and, 
if so, whether such range data is available;
--Whether and why labels for the product should appear on boxes, the 
products themselves, or through some other location or means;
--Any particular burdens associated with labeling specific product 
categories; and
--Whether the labels should provide any other available information 
about those products relevant to their energy consumption and consumer 
use.

[[Page 64401]]

2. List of Potential New Product Categories
    Clothes Dryers: EPCA designates clothes dryers as covered products 
in 42 U.S.C. 6292. In 1979, the Commission declined to require labels 
for clothes dryers after finding models on the market had a limited 
range of energy use.\5\ In 2014, the Commission reconsidered clothes 
dryer labels, and again declined to require them, concluding that dryer 
information continued to suggest that model efficiency varied little 
across available models.\6\ However, the Commission recognized that 
electric dryers using emerging heat pump technology had lower annual 
energy costs compared to conventional models. At that time, few, if 
any, such models were available in the U.S. Now, however, heat pump 
models appear to be more prevalent. For example, the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR website (www.energy.gov) lists 
about two dozen heat pump models as qualifying under that program. This 
current data suggests the Commission should revisit requiring labels 
for clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 44 FR 66466, 66469. Under EPCA, the Commission must 
prescribe labels for dryers unless it finds labeling would not be 
technologically or economically feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1). In 
initially promulgating the Rule in 1979, the Commission, after 
examining the statute and statutory history, concluded ``that 
Congress['s] intent was to permit the exclusion of any product 
category, if the Commission found that the costs of the labeling 
program would substantially outweigh any potential benefits to 
consumers.'' 44 FR 66466, 66467-68.
    \6\ 79 FR 34642, 34659 (June 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air Cleaners (``Air Purifiers''): Air purifiers use significant 
amounts of energy and exhibit a substantial range of energy use. In 
addition, in January 2022, DOE published a Request for Information on 
possible test procedures and conservation standards for these 
products.\7\ In July 2022, DOE determined that that consumer air 
cleaners qualify as a ``covered product'' under EPCA.\8\ Furthermore, 
the ENERGY STAR program covers room air cleaners and requires 
participating manufacturers to test the operating mode power of their 
models using ``ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2015: Method of Measuring the Performance 
of Portable Household Electric Room Air Measurement of Operating Power 
Cleaners.'' Recent data compiled by the ENERGY STAR program shows 
models rated for room sizes between 150 and 299 square feet range in 
annual energy use from about 50 kWh/yr to 360 kWh/yr, resulting in an 
estimated annual energy cost difference of more than $30 per year in 
energy costs (assuming $0.14/kWh).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 87 FR 3702 (Jan. 26, 2022). In March 2022, DOE reopened the 
comment period. 87 FR 11326 (Mar. 1, 2022).
    \8\ 87 FR 42297 (July 15, 2022).
    \9\ See, e.g., https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-room-air-cleaners/results. EPCA does not include air 
cleaners in its list of covered products, but the Commission has 
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3) to require labeling if DOE 
designates them as ``covered products.'' 42 U.S.C. 6292. 
Additionally, regardless of DOE's efforts, the Commission has 
authority to require labels for room air cleaners pursuant to its 
general labeling authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) if it 
determines that labeling ``is likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, media reports suggest there are ongoing concerns in the 
market about the consistency of advertised flow rate or capacity claims 
(e.g., recommended room sizes).\10\ FTC labeling requirements mandating 
specific test procedure requirements would ensure consumers have 
uniform information about competing models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See, e.g., https://www.allergybuyersclub.com/learning/air-filter-seven-sins.html and https://www.bobvila.com/articles/best-air-purifier-for-smoke/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Miscellaneous Refrigerator Products: DOE has designated 
miscellaneous refrigerators (MREFs) as covered products under EPCA. The 
category includes coolers (e.g., wine chillers) and combination cooler 
refrigeration products (i.e., products with warm and cool 
compartments). Within this category, some similarly sized models appear 
to exhibit a significant range of energy use. For example, recent DOE 
data indicates freestanding compact cooler models between 3 and 7 cubic 
feet range in annual energy use between about 100 to 205 kWh/yr.\11\ 
DOE currently has test procedures and standards for these products.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See DOE Compliance Certification Management System, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \12\ Pursuant 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3), the Commission has authority 
to require labels on MREFs that DOE designates as covered products 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). DOE issued final test procedures and 
standards for MREFs in 2016. 81 FR 46768 (July 18, 2016) (test 
procedure); 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016) (standards); see also 79 FR 
78736, 78737 (Dec. 31, 2014) (FTC request for comments following 
proposed DOE test procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Lamps (Light Bulbs): The Rule does not currently require 
labels for all types of lower-brightness lamps (i.e., light bulbs). 
However, these products can consume a significant amount of energy. 
Specifically, the current coverage does not include lamps lower than 
310 lumens and 30 watts. This leaves certain lamp types, particularly 
25-watt incandescent bulbs, uncovered. A single such incandescent bulb 
can cost consumers more than $3 per year in electricity costs, which 
can add up if multiple bulbs are used in a home. The LED equivalent for 
such bulbs, however, has an annual energy cost of about 50 cents. These 
products are not currently covered by DOE standards. However, the FTC 
has authority to require labeling for them under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6). 
In addition to the general questions listed above, commenters should 
address whether the Commission should amend the Rule's coverage to 
include such lower brightness bulbs or any other lighting products 
(e.g., full color ``tunable'' lamps with adjustable color and CCT).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the past, the Commission has looked beyond DOE's 
specific lamp definitions, which generally cover products subject to 
DOE's efficiency standards, to include products designated as 
``specialty consumer lamps'' using its general labeling authority at 
42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6). 80 FR 67285 (Nov. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Residential Ice Makers: Consumers can purchase residential 
icemakers in various configurations, including portable, non-portable, 
uncooled storage, and non-portable, cooled storage units. Residential 
models generally produce fewer than 50 pounds of ice per hour. There 
are currently no DOE standards or test procedure requirements 
specifically for these models. DOE tested these products in 2014 and 
found tested models used significant energy. The DOE data also 
suggested a significant range of energy consumption may exist among 
models offered in the market.\14\ Although DOE developed and applied a 
test procedure for ice makers for research purposes, it ultimately did 
not publish a test procedure for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Preliminary Technical Support Document EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0043-0024, Section 7.2.3 and Table 7.2.4, DOE, https://beta.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general questions listed above, the Commission 
seeks comment on which capacity categories should apply to consumer 
(residential) models for labeling purposes, and whether DOE's test 
procedure for commercial icemakers can be used as a basis for 
EnergyGuide labels for residential models.
    Humidifiers: Consumers use residential humidifiers, including 
portable and whole-house devices, either to increase or maintain the 
humidity levels in all or parts of the home or to ease illness 
symptoms.\15\ There are currently no DOE standards or test procedures 
for these products. A 2012 EPA ENERGY STAR report suggested differences 
in energy consumption among competing humidifiers, particularly for 
whole-

[[Page 64402]]

house models.\16\ The report also stated there is ``very little, if 
any, correlation between humidification capacity (in square feet) and 
watt rating.'' The report concluded, by choosing energy-efficient 
humidifiers, consumers could collectively save an estimated 3.4 
terawatts of electricity over the lifetime of these products, equating 
to nearly $400,000,000. However, the report indicated there was no 
standard test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of 
portable models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) (general labeling authority). For 
dehumidifiers, EPCA contains a specific prohibition for an ``Energy 
Guide'' label requirement. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(c).
    \16\ ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report Residential 
Humidifiers October 2012. https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY_STAR_Scoping_Report_Residential_Humidifiers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Miscellaneous Gas Products (``Hearth Products''): In February 2022, 
DOE tentatively determined that miscellaneous gas products, which are 
comprised of decorative hearths and outdoor heaters, qualify as covered 
products under EPCA.\17\ These products include fireplaces, fire pits, 
and other similar products that have decorative purposes, but can also 
provide heat. DOE proposed to define ``decorative hearth product'' as 
gas-fired appliances that: simulate a solid-fueled fireplace or present 
a flame pattern; include products designed for indoor and/or outdoor 
use; are not designed to be operated with a thermostat; are not 
designed to provide space heating to the indoor space in which they are 
installed; and are not designed to provide heat proximate to the unit. 
DOE estimates indicate that these products can consume substantial 
energy.\18\ In addition to the general questions above, the Commission 
requests comment on whether the Commission should consider labeling for 
related products outside of DOE's current proposal (e.g., electric 
models) and whether test procedures are or are likely to be available 
for such products.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 87 FR 6786 (Feb. 7, 2022).
    \18\ For example, DOE estimated the calculated per household 
weighted average ignition energy of use of outdoor heaters to be 0.7 
MMBtu/yr and the weighted burner energy use to be 2.2 MMBtu/yr, for 
total outdoor heater household energy use of 2.9 MMBtu/yr (859 kWh/
yr), and estimated the weighted average (indoor and outdoor 
products) per-household energy use of a miscellaneous gas product to 
be 4.1 MMBtu/yr (1,211 kWh/yr). 87 FR at 6792. DOE also discussed 
these general issues in 2013. 78 FR 79638, 79640 (Dec. 31, 2013). 
There is currently no DOE test procedure for these products.
    \19\ The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Rule 
should contain any affirmative energy disclosures or labels for 
furnace fans, which are components of products already labeled under 
the Rule. See 79 FR 38129 (July 3, 2014) (DOE standards for furnace 
fans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cooking Tops: EPCA lists ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' as covered 
products.\20\ In 1979, the Commission decided not to require labels for 
cooking tops, as well as ranges and ovens, citing the small variability 
of energy use between models.\21\ More recent information from DOE, 
however, suggests the Commission should revisit the issue. 
Specifically, DOE research found that energy consumption for gas 
cooking top models may vary significantly depending on burner and grate 
design. DOE also noted energy consumption among similar electric 
cooking top models can vary depending on whether the product employs 
induction or resistance heating or has smooth or coil elements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10).
    \21\ 44 FR 66466, 66469 (Nov. 19, 1979) (``Since the substantial 
costs of a labeling requirement would not produce corresponding 
consumer benefits, the Commission has determined that labeling of 
kitchen ranges and ovens would not be economically feasible.'').
    \22\ 81 FR 60784, 60800-60802 (Sept. 2, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2020, DOE withdrew its test procedure for these 
products,\23\ citing concerns about whether the procedure yielded 
representative results for average use.\24\ In February 2021, DOE 
listed the cooking products test procedure withdrawal as one of 
thirteen rulemakings the agency would reconsider pursuant to Executive 
Order 13990.\25\ In July 2022, DOE reestablished a test procedure for 
conventional cooking tops.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18, 2020).
    \24\ In December 2020, DOE also sought comments on revised 
standards for these products. 85 FR 80982 (Dec. 14, 2020).
    \25\ See https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2021/02/f82/eere_eo13990_memo_1.pdf.
    \26\ See https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/cookingproducts-tp-fr.pdf; 86 FR 60974 (Nov. 4, 2021) (results of 
round robin testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to questions regarding whether labeling cooking tops 
would help consumers in their purchasing decisions, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether there is an alternative test procedure the 
agency could use for EnergyGuide labels.
    Electric Spas: In February 2022, DOE published a tentative 
determination that portable electric spas qualify as a covered product 
under EPCA and followed up with a final coverage determination in 
September 2022.\27\ DOE estimated more than 3 million households in the 
U.S. operate portable electric spas regularly, using approximately and 
an estimated average energy consumption of 1,699 kWh per year per 
household (~$238/yr).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 87 FR 8745 (Feb. 16, 2022); 87 FR 54123 (Sept. 2, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether any Rule changes are 
necessary to ensure current labeling requirements are consistent with 
current consumer shopping behavior. For several product categories 
(e.g., refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and televisions), 
the Rule currently requires manufacturers to affix labels to units 
themselves. However, of the millions of units produced each year, only 
a tiny fraction are actually displayed on a showroom floor. For 
products typically displayed in packaging (e.g., room air conditioners, 
lighting, ceiling fans, and lighting products), the Rule requires 
manufacturers to incorporate the label on the packaging. For products 
sold online, the Rule requires retail sellers to include label 
information on product pages. To aid retailers with this function, 
manufacturers must make their EnergyGuide labels available on a website 
and report that website to the FTC, which they can do via the DOE 
Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS).
    Under EPCA, the Commission must ``require that each covered product 
in the type or class of covered products to which the rule applies bear 
a label'' disclosing energy use information. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). 
However, EPCA provides flexibility for the Commission to determine the 
placement of labels in a manner likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.\28\ In addition, the statute gives FTC authority 
to require retailers to provide labels and other disclosures for 
consumers, both on websites and in stores.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(3) (``A rule under this section shall 
require that the label be displayed in a manner that the Commission 
determines is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing 
decisions and is appropriate to carry out this part.'').
    \29\ EPCA authorizes the Commission to prescribe labeling rules 
under this section applicable to all covered products, including 
rules governing label disclosures at the point of sale. See 42 
U.S.C. 6294(c)(3) and (c)(4) (``(4) A rule under this section 
applicable to a covered product may require disclosure, in any 
printed matter displayed or distributed at the point of sale of such 
product, of any information which may be required under this section 
to be disclosed on the label of such product''); see also 42 U.S.C. 
6298 (authorizing the Commission to issue rules it ``deems necessary 
to carry out'' the law's provisions). The Rule already contains 
affirmative obligations for retailers to display labels to customers 
for particular product categories. See, e.g., 16 CFR 
305.22(b)(2)(ii) (requiring retailers to show consumers the labels 
for covered central air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces prior 
to purchase); 16 CFR 305.26 (requiring retailers to make written 
disclosures at point-of-sale). In 2014, the Commission sought 
comment on whether it should require retailers to affix labels on 
units they display in their showrooms. 79 FR 34642, 34658 (June 18, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this authority, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it should amend the current approach in light of contemporary retail 
and consumer practices. Specifically, the

[[Page 64403]]

Commission solicits comments on alternatives to the current ``showroom-
ready'' approach. Such changes could include requiring retailers to 
affix showroom labels (provided by the manufacturer) for the small 
number of units that are displayed, allowing manufacturers to include 
labels on or in product packaging (e.g., on product boxes, literature 
packs, instruction manuals, and through QR codes) in lieu of affixing 
labels separately to every unit itself, and/or requiring retailers to 
provide label information in some other method or location. The 
Commission additionally requests any recent research or data 
demonstrating when and where consumers typically make purchasing 
decisions for the types of products covered by the Rule. Examples of 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
relevant information include:

--What percentage of consumers rely solely on showroom visits to obtain 
information about their purchases, particularly for products that 
currently bear a label directly on the unit (e.g., refrigerators)?
--What percentage of consumers research and compare models online 
before their purchases?
--Should the Commission eliminate requirements for manufacturers to 
place labels directly on products typically displayed in showrooms 
(e.g., refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and televisions), 
and require manufacturers to provide the labels with the product in a 
different way (e.g., on packaging, instruction manuals, or literature 
bags)?
--Should the Rule require retailers to display the EnergyGuide label 
for those individual units they choose to display out of packages in 
their showrooms?

C. Repair Instructions

    The Commission also seeks comment on potential requirements related 
to repair instructions. Under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5)), the 
Commission has authority to require manufacturers to provide consumers 
with ``additional information relating to energy consumption, including 
instructions for the maintenance, use, or repair of the covered 
product'' if the Commission finds such information would assist with 
purchase decisions or in the use of the product, and would not be 
unduly burdensome to manufacturers. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether, for any product covered, the Rule should require manufacturers 
to provide consumers with access to repair instructions (with updates). 
Specifically, comments should address whether lack of access to repair 
instructions for covered products is an existing problem for consumers; 
whether providing such information would assist consumers in their 
purchasing decisions or product use; whether providing such information 
would be unduly burdensome to manufacturers; and any other relevant 
issues.

D. General Label Content and Format Requirements

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should consider 
changes to the Rule's label content and format requirements. 
Specifically, commenters should consider:

--Are there any prescriptive requirements (e.g., type size and style, 
label size, number of picas, paper weight, and label attachment 
provisions) in the Rule that are unnecessarily burdensome? If so, would 
elimination of such requirements create inconsistencies in the label 
appearance that would reduce consumer confidence in the label, or 
reduce its utility and use?
--Are there any improvements the Commission could make to the content 
of the information on labels (or other locations such as product 
manuals or websites) to help consumers with their purchasing decisions? 
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See, e.g., National Propane Gas Association recent comments 
related to full-fuel cycle impacts. FTC-2022-0032-0007 (Jul. 11, 
2022) (https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2022-0032-0007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Is there a role that QR codes may play in conveying useful 
information to consumers?
--Are there any improvements to the format, size, or layout of the 
labels that would help consumers with their purchasing decisions?

E. Requiring Links to Online Lighting Facts Labels

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Rule should 
require lamp manufacturers to include information regarding their 
Lighting Facts labels with their data reports required by the DOE. The 
Rule already requires manufacturers of other covered consumer products 
to provide a website address linking to their EnergyGuide labels as 
part of their required data reports, which manufacturers submit through 
the DOE reporting system.\31\ The Commission did not extend this 
requirement to Lighting Facts labels in 2016 given appropriation 
restrictions at the time placed on DOE spending related to light bulbs. 
Instead, the Commission stated it would revisit the issue at ``a later 
date should circumstances warrant.'' \32\ The DOE prohibition no longer 
exists. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on applying the 
requirements in section 305.11(a)(5) to Lighting Facts labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 81 FR 63634 (Sept. 15, 2016); 16 CFR 305.11 (FTC reporting 
requirements).
    \32\ 81 FR 63634, 63636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Updating Cost Figures for Lighting Facts and Ceiling Fan Labels

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should update the 
electricity cost disclosure on the Lighting Facts and ceiling fan 
labels to reflect recent DOE national estimates. Currently, the 
Lighting Facts label uses 11 cents per kWh, while the ceiling fan label 
uses 12 cents. The current (2022) DOE national estimate for electricity 
(rounded) is 14 cents per kWh.\33\ The Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should update these numbers and, if so, when the change 
should become effective to allow manufacturers to incorporate such 
changes into routine package updates and thus minimize any burden 
associated with such changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 87 FR 12681 (Mar. 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Phasing Out Transitional Language for Refrigerator and Clothes 
Washer Labels

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should phase out 
language on refrigerator and clothes washer labels that the Commission 
added in 2013 to help distinguish models tested with the current DOE 
procedure from those tested with an older version.\34\ This language, 
which advises consumers to ``Compare ONLY to other labels with yellow 
numbers,'' is now obsolete and crowds the label with irrelevant 
information. The Commission seeks comment on when and how to smoothly 
transition back to the conventional label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Consistency With DOE Requirements

    The Commission also seeks comment on whether any changes or updates 
are necessary to the Rule's requirements (e.g., definitions, product 
coverage, capacity descriptions, etc.) to ensure consistency, where 
necessary, with DOE requirements.

G. Bilingual Label Guidance

    The Rule at 16 CFR 305.23(b)(6) and 16 CFR 305.23(c)(4) currently 
offers guidance to manufacturers who choose to use bilingual labels for 
Lighting Facts, including guidance on label content and format. Should 
the Rule offer similar guidance on bilingual labels for the other 
consumer products covered by the

[[Page 64404]]

Rule? Are there other improvements that could be made to the Rule that 
would help non-English speaking or multilingual consumers with their 
purchasing decisions?

IV. Comment Submissions

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider 
your comment, we must receive it on or before December 27, 2022. Write 
``Energy Labeling Rule ANPR, Matter No. R611004'' on your comment. 
Because of the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 
outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail 
addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. As a result, we 
strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the 
https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure that the Commission 
considers your online comment, please follow the instructions on the 
web-based form. Your comment--including your name and your state--will 
be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the 
https://www.regulations.gov website. As a matter of discretion, the 
Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from 
comments before placing them on that website.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Energy Labeling Rule 
ANPR, Matter No. R611004'' on your comment and on the envelope, and 
mail it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of 
the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 
Washington, DC 20580.
    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible 
website at www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making 
sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential 
information. In particular, your comment should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social 
Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include 
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment 
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial 
information which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided by 
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule Sec.  
4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including in particular competitively 
sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, 
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer 
names.
    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is 
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule Sec.  4.9(c), 16 CFR 
4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment 
that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis 
for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule Sec.  4.9(c). Your 
comment will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants 
your request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once 
your comment has been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov, we cannot 
redact or remove your comment unless you submit a confidentiality 
request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 
Sec.  4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
    The FTC Act and other laws that 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 on or before December 27, 
2022. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.

    By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.

    Note:  The following statements will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations:

Statement of Chair Lina M. Khan

    Today, the Commission voted to issue an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking seeking comment on proposed improvements to the Energy 
Labeling Rule. Among other areas, the Notice asks whether consumers and 
independent repair shops would benefit from repair information being 
more widely available on energy labels. As I noted when the Commission 
issued its Policy Statement on Right to Repair in July 2021, I believe 
it is vital that the Commission use every tool available to it to 
vindicate Americans' right to repair their own products,\1\ and I am 
pleased that we are continuing to follow through on that commitment 
here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Remarks of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Proposed Policy 
Statement on Right to Repair (July 21, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1592358/p194400khanremarksrighttorepair.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 gives the Commission 
clear statutory authority to require manufacturers to provide consumers 
with ``additional information relating to energy consumption, including 
instructions for the maintenance, use, or repair of the covered 
product'' if the Commission finds such information would assist with 
purchasing decisions or in the use of the product.\2\ For the first 
time, the Commission is deploying this tool to ask whether consumers 
and independent repair shops would benefit from having repair 
information more widely available on energy labels. Such a provision 
could help consumers more easily repair everything from refrigerators 
and dishwashers to washing machines, air conditioners, water heaters, 
and televisions--products currently covered under the Rule--as well as 
new products that the Commission is considering adding to the Rule, 
including clothes dryers, air purifiers, humidifiers, hearths and 
outdoor heaters, cooking tops, and electric spas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the FTC's work has documented,\3\ companies routinely use a wide 
array of practices to restrict Americans from repairing their own 
products. These restrictions can raise costs for consumers, stifle 
innovation, close off business opportunity for independent repair 
shops, create unnecessary electronic waste, delay timely repairs, and 
undermine resiliency.\4\ Today's action demonstrates the Commission's 
commitment to using every tool it has available to advance Americans' 
ability to access independent repair. It builds on the Policy Statement 
on Right to Repair that the Commission issued in July 2021, affirming 
our intent to root

[[Page 64405]]

out illegal repair restrictions.\5\ The Commission has since brought 
numerous right to repair cases, addressing unlawful repair restrictions 
affecting a variety of products, including motorcycles and outdoor 
electric power generators.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In July 2019, the Commission held a workshop and a call for 
research on the prevalence and impact of manufacturers' repair 
restrictions. Nixing the Fix: A Workshop on Repair Restrictions, 
Fed. Trade Comm'n (July 2019), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2019/07/nixing-fix-workshop-repair-restrictions. In May 2021, 
the Commission issued a report to Congress that identified various 
types of repair restrictions and explored how the Commission could 
best address repair restriction concerns. Fed. Trade Comm'n, Nixing 
the Fix: An FTC Report to Congress on Repair Restrictions (May 
2021), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/nixing-fix-ftc-report-congress-repair-restrictions/nixing_the_fix_report_final_5521_630pm-508_002.pdf.
    \4\ Remarks of Chair Lina M. Khan Regarding the Proposed Policy 
Statement on Right to Repair, supra note 1.
    \5\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC to Ramp Up Law 
Enforcement Against Illegal Repair Restrictions (July 21, 2021), 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2021/07/ftc-ramp-law-enforcement-against-illegal-repair-restrictions.
    \6\ Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Takes Action Against 
Harley-Davidson and Westinghouse for Illegally Restricting 
Customers' Right to Repair (June 23, 2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/06/ftc-takes-action-against-harley-davidson-westinghouse-illegally-restricting-customers-right-repair-0; Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm'n, FTC Takes Action Against 
Weber for Illegally Restricting Customers' Right to Repair (July 7, 
2022), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2022/07/ftc-takes-action-against-weber-illegally-restricting-customers-right-repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I thank our staff for their work on this important matter and look 
forward to hearing from the public during this rulemaking proceeding.

Concurring Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson

    Seventh time's a charm.
    Today the Commission issues an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on possible revisions to the Energy 
Labeling Rule. Specifically, the ANPR asks whether the Commission 
should add consumer products to the labeling program, whether the label 
location and other requirements should be updated to reflect current 
shopping patterns, and whether the label content should be revised to 
reduce unnecessary burdens. The document also addresses issues related 
to reporting and refrigerator labels.
    Since 2018, I have urged the Commission to seek comment on the more 
prescriptive aspects of this Rule.\1\ The Commission has a statutory 
mandate to issue a labeling Rule. I strongly believe, however, that 
this mandate does not require the Rule to include the highly detailed 
and prescriptive requirements in the current Rule. For example, the 
Rule specifies the trim size dimensions for labels, including the 
precise width (between 5\1/4\'' to 5\1/2\'') and length (between 7\3/
8\'' and 7\5/8\''); the number of picas for the copy set (between 27 
and 29); the type style (Arial) and setting; the weight of the paper 
stock on which the labels are printed (not less than 58 pounds per 500 
sheets or equivalent); and a suggested minimum peel adhesive capacity 
of 12 ounces per square inch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson 
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Energy Labeling Rule (Dec. 10, 
2018) (expressing my view that the Commission should seek comment on 
the prescriptive labeling requirements), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2018/12/dissenting-statement-commissioner-christine-s-wilson-notice-proposed; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner 
Christine S. Wilson on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Energy 
Labeling Rule (Oct. 22, 2019) (urging the Commission to seek comment 
on the labeling requirements), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1551786/r611004_wilson_dissent_energy_labeling_rule.pdf; Concurring 
Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking: Energy Labeling Rule (Mar. 20, 2020) 
(commending the Commission decision to seek comment on some of the 
more prescriptive rule requirements), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1569815/r611004_wilson_statement_energy_labeling.pdf; Dissenting Statement 
of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson on the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking: Energy Labeling Rule (Dec. 22, 2020) (dissenting due to 
the Commission's decision not to make changes to the Rule 
requirements in response to the March 2020 publication), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585242/commission_wilson_dissenting_statement_energy_labeling_rule_final12-22-2020revd2.pdf; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. 
Wilson on the Notice of Amendments to the Energy Labeling Rule (Oct. 
6, 2021) (urging again seeking comment on the rule requirements), 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1597166/commission_wilson_dissenting_statement_energy_labeling_rule_2021-10-04_final.pdf.; Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine 
S. Wilson on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Energy 
Labeling Rule (May 11, 2022) (encouraging the Commission to seek 
comment on the more prescriptive requirements of the Rule), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Commission%20Wilson%20Dissenting%20Statement%20Energy%20Labeling%20Rule%205.11.22%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2020, the Commission sought comment on some of these 
prescriptive provisions and received some helpful and thoughtful 
comments. Unfortunately, the Commission did not make changes based on 
those comments but instead chose to make only required conforming 
changes at that time.\2\ I applaud the decision today to seek comment 
on the Rule more broadly, to ask specifically about these highly 
prescriptive requirements, and to consider making changes to streamline 
the Rule. I look forward to reviewing the comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Christine S. Wilson 
on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Energy Labeling Rule (Dec. 22, 
2020) (dissenting due to the Commission's decision not to make 
changes to the Rule requirements in response to the March 2020 
publication), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585242/commission_wilson_dissenting_statement_energy_labeling_rule_final12-22-2020revd2.pdf.

[FR Doc. 2022-23063 Filed 10-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P