[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7566-7597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01601]
[[Page 7565]]
Vol. 89
Friday,
No. 23
February 2, 2024
Part V
Federal Trade Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16 CFR Part 305
Energy Labeling Rule; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 7566]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 305
[3084-AB15]
Energy Labeling Rule
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'')
proposes amendments to improve the Energy Labeling Rule (``Rule''),
including energy labels for several new consumer product categories and
changes to label display requirements. Specifically, the Notice seeks
comment on labels for air cleaners, clothes dryers, miscellaneous
refrigeration products, and portable electric spas; modifications to
existing labels for clothes washers, televisions, and several heating
products; revisions to the current requirements for affixing labels on
showroom models; and several minor amendments to improve the Rule as
discussed below.
DATES: Comments must be received by April 2, 2024.
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
Improvements (16 CFR part 305) (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, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex L), Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome (202-326-2889), or
Hong Park (202-326-2158), Attorneys, 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 several proposed changes to the
Energy Labeling Rule including: (1) labels for air cleaners, clothes
dryers, miscellaneous refrigeration products, and portable electric
spas; (2) modifications to existing labels for clothes washers,
televisions, and several heating products; (3) revisions to the current
requirements for affixing labels on showroom models; and (4) several
minor amendments to improve the Rule as discussed below.
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 \3\ requires energy labeling for major home appliances and other
consumer products to help consumers compare competing models.
Specifically, it 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. Under EPCA, the FTC has broad authority to
``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). In addition to products named in the
statute or designated by DOE, FTC may require labels for any consumer
product provided the label ``is likely to assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions.'' \4\ To achieve this goal, the FTC has
discretion to determine both the manner in which the label is displayed
as well as the energy-related content of the label.\5\ Additionally,
the statute gives FTC authority to require retailers to provide labels
and other disclosures for consumers, both on websites and in stores.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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. See 10 CFR parts 429
and 430.
\3\ 16 CFR part 305.
\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. 6294(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.
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c).
\6\ 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) (``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). Since its initial promulgation in
1979 (44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979)), the Rule has contained
obligations for retailers to display labels to customers for
particular product categories. See, e.g., 16 CFR 305.22(b)(2)
(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 the point of sale). In 2014, the Commission sought
comment on whether it should require retailers to affix labels on
units they display in their appliance showrooms. 79 FR 34642, 34658
(June 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 key disclosures: (1) estimated
annual energy cost, (2) a product's energy consumption or energy
efficiency rating as determined by DOE test procedures, (3) and a
comparability range displaying the highest and lowest energy costs or
efficiency ratings for all similar models. For cost calculations, the
Rule specifies national average costs for applicable energy sources
(e.g., electricity, natural gas, oil) based on DOE estimates. The Rule
sets a 2027 date, based on a five-year schedule, for updating
comparability range and annual energy cost information based on
manufacturer data submitted pursuant to the Rule's reporting
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 16 CFR 305.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In 2022, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``ANPR'') seeking comment on potential improvements to the
Energy Labeling Rule, including whether the Commission should add new
consumer product categories to the labeling program, change label
location to match consumer shopping patterns, and streamline existing
requirements.\8\ In addition, the ANPR sought comment on several
specific issues including whether the Commission should amend the Rule
to: (1) modify 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 DOE requirements. Finally, the ANPR
sought comment on potential requirements related to repair
[[Page 7567]]
instructions.\9\ The Commission is not seeking further comment on those
repair issues at this time. While the Commission is not seeking
additional comment at this time, we remain interested and engaged with
stakeholders on this issue. As expressed in the Nixing the Fix report,
we remain concerned about the repairability of products. We continue to
review comments, research, legislative initiatives and industry
practices as we evaluate next steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 87 FR 64399 (Oct. 25, 2022).
\9\ Under EPCA 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. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, the Commission received 48 comments, covering the
following four areas: (1) potential new product categories; (2)
existing product categories; (3) label placement requirements; and (4)
miscellaneous issues. The following section summarizes these comments
and provides the Commission's analysis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The comments are available at www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Labeling for New Product Categories
The ANPR invited comments on whether to add several new product
categories to the energy labeling program. In response, commenters
provided a range of opinions and information. As discussed below, two
expressed support for expanding labeling to all the proposed products,
while others focused on specific products. For each specific product,
we provide relevant background information, summarize the comments, and
analyze the record.
A. Support for Labeling All New Products
Two commenters supported labeling on all new products for which the
Commission sought comments in the ANPR but did not discuss individual
product categories in detail.\11\ Specifically, Earthjustice asserted
all these products ``use a substantial amount of energy and exhibit a
range of annual energy costs across competing similar models.''
Additionally, the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority (``NYSERDA'') ``strongly support[ed] FTC expanding labeling''
across all the new product categories identified. It noted the
importance of consumer energy labeling for the State of New York to
meet the State's climate mandates. The NYSERDA further explained that
labeling encourages energy-efficiency technology by providing consumers
with information to choose efficient products and by encouraging
manufacturers to develop higher-efficiency models. It noted that energy
efficiency benefits not only homeowners but tenants who pay utility
bills but do not choose installed equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A third commenter, Merriam, suggested the FTC also consider
labeling for electric vehicles. However, the Commission cannot
require labels for such products because EPCA specifically excludes
automobiles from its definition of consumer products. See 42 U.S.C.
6291(1). In addition, the FTC already addresses alternative fuels
and alternative fuel vehicles in its Alternative Fuels Rule (16 CFR
part 309) and Fuel Economy Guides (16 CFR part 259).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Air Cleaners (``Air Purifiers'')
Background: Air cleaners (or ``air purifiers'') use significant
amounts of energy and exhibit a substantial range of energy use and
annual energy costs among similar models. For example, as discussed in
the ANPR, recent ENERGY STAR data 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 difference of
more than $30 per year in energy costs (assuming $0.14/kWh),\12\ a
range similar to many refrigerators subject to labeling. Additionally,
DOE recently completed proceedings that establish test procedures \13\
and final conservation standards \14\ for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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, 42 U.S.C. 6292, but
the Commission has authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3) to require
labeling if DOE designates them as ``covered products'' and the
Commission finds labeling will assist purchasers in making
purchasing decisions and economically and technologically feasible.
Additionally, the Commission has independent 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.''
\13\ 88 FR 14014 (Mar. 6, 2023).
\14\ 88 FR 21752 (Apr. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: As discussed below, commenters addressing air cleaners
generally supported energy label requirements once DOE resolved
questions regarding its test procedure--which it has done.
While all commenters addressing this issue supported a label, some
urged the Commission to set a compliance date that takes into account
DOE's rulemaking. For instance, the Joint Commenters, a collection of
industry and energy-efficiency organizations, along with the California
Investor Owned Utilities (``IOUs''), recommended a December 31, 2025
label compliance date (or three years after final DOE action, whichever
is later) to coincide with their recommended compliance date for the
second tier of DOE standards and test procedures.\15\ The Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') also
recommended FTC wait until DOE publishes a final energy conservation
standard before conducting a labeling rulemaking, and then require
labeling by the Joint Commenter's recommended compliance date, or no
sooner than 2025. In addition, P.R. China, which urged the FTC to
refrain from issuing labeling rules until DOE clarifies its test
procedure, noted inconsistencies between DOE's proposed test for
measuring the Integrated Energy Factor \16\ (``IEF'') and the annual
energy use (kWh/year) in the ENERGY STAR certification. P.R. China also
observed consumers can ``easily check the annual energy usage (kWh/
year) of different manufacturers and air purifiers models on the ENERGY
STAR website.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In response to DOE's reopening for comment its Request for
Information relating to air cleaner, see 87 FR 11326 (Mar. 1, 2022),
the Joint Commenters submitted a negotiated joint proposal
separating implementation of the relevant standards and test
conditions into two tiers and setting December 31, 2023, and
December 31, 2025, as the respective compliance deadlines. In the
event DOE rejects their proposal, the Joint Commenters requested the
FTC set a compliance date that aligns with DOE's compliance date.
\16\ The Integrated Energy Factor measures the energy efficiency
of air cleaners. It is expressed in the smoke Clean Air Delivery
Rate (``CADR'') per watts and accounts for the energy used in both
standby mode and operation. See 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. FF at
Sec. 7; 88 FR 14014, 14023 (Mar. 6, 2023).
\17\ P.R. China, however, recommended that the FTC not require
labeling for products without clear test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters additionally urged the FTC to include a room size
estimate on the label using a single, consistent test method. For
instance, the California IOUs explained the lack of a consistent room
size metric has led to multiple, inconsistent representations affecting
consumers' ability to make informed decisions, even among top-rated
products. These utilities also recommended the label disclose the
parameters used to calculate recommended room size (e.g., ceiling
height, air changes per hour, and air change frequency). The Joint
Commenters, which also supported a room size disclosure, urged FTC to
communicate a model's recommended room size to consumers using a
specific test method (ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020). Under the recommended
procedure, manufacturers would calculate room size in square feet based
on the removal of at least 80 percent of smoke particles
[[Page 7568]]
in a steady-state room environment (assuming the room experiences
incoming pollutants at the rate of one air change per hour) and with
complete mixing in the room. The Joint Commenters also urged the use of
the CADR value from the AHAM test method to determine the recommended
room size, as opposed to an alternative such as ``PM 2.5.'' They
explained engineering tobacco smoke used in the test is a surrogate for
many of the fine particles found in a home, and thus generates a useful
performance metric even for consumers who do not smoke.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Joint Commenters stated that a standard first-order
differential equation that includes these contributions is utilized
for the calculation, and that is summarized as: Room Size (square
feet-ft\2\) = cigarette smoke CADR x 1.55; Room Size (square meters-
m\2\) = Room Size (ft\2\) x 0.093. They also explained that the
maximum allowable CADR that can be measured by the ANSI/AHAM AC-1-
2020 method in the chamber is 600, so the maximum room size that the
standard can confidently predict performance would be a room of 930
ft\2\ (86.4 m\2\). For modeling of suggested room size, AHAM assumes
a room height of 8 feet and the air cleaner producing 4.8 air
changes per hour of cleaned air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters also urged the Commission to include a CADR
disclosure on the label. CADR measures the number of cleaned air
exchanges for a given square footage of space and thus describes more
than the system's filter efficiency or fan strength. For example,
Blueair recommended this disclosure because it is widely accepted
within the industry and can highlight ``energy efficiency and power
consumption, while also providing information about air filtration.''
According to Blueair, models with a high CADR rating optimize both the
filtration efficiency of the air purifier and its airflow to clean the
air quickly and effectively from pollutants. Blueair further explained
many products on the market offer a high filtration percentage (i.e.,
``a single pass filtration efficiency''), but only produce a small
volume of clean air and thus are slow to cycle through a room's air.
Blueair, however, opposed including energy costs on labels unless
``accuracy could be assured.'' It explained the test conditions behind
such an estimate may involve unrealistic conditions (e.g., ``running
products at their highest levels for a period of time'') and may
produce ``elevated cost estimates'' inconsistent with actual operation.
Finally, one commenter addressed the label's location and content.
Specifically, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
(``AHAM'') recommended the Commission require manufacturers to display
a new air cleaner label on boxes via a QR code and provided a sample
label containing disclosures for annual energy cost, room size, and
Integrated Energy Factor.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Madison IAQ argued the label should not apply to Incidental
Air Cleaning products, which include products that meet DOE's ``air
cleaner'' definition but provide an additional function unrelated to
air purification, such as a vacuum cleaner, fresh air ventilators,
range hood (ducted or non-ducted), refrigerator, or desiccant
dehumidifier, and whose air purification function is incidental to
its other functions. The Commission notes that DOE has stated ``
`incidental air cleaning products' do not meet the definition of an
air cleaner as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.'' 88 FR 14014, 14018 (Mar.
6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring EnergyGuide labeling
for air cleaners. Recent DOE analysis demonstrates significant
variability in the energy use of various air cleaner models.\20\
Therefore, as discussed above, labeling should assist consumers in
their purchasing decisions by allowing them to choose among competing
models with a range of energy costs. In addition, such labeling does
not appear to raise unique or difficult implementation issues compared
to other products already labeled under the Rule, and, therefore,
should be economically and technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See ``2023-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency
Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Air Cleaners, March
2023,'' Chapter 3, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments require manufactures to affix an
EnergyGuide label on air cleaner packages because retailers typically
display these products in boxes. The proposed label displays yearly
energy costs as the primary disclosure. The label also includes
secondary disclosures, which the Commission has determined will assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions or in using such products, and
will not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers.\21\ Specifically, the
label includes a yearly energy cost range for the recommended room
size, CADR, and IEF. The recommended room size is based on categories
DOE applies in their regulations: small (15-154 sq. ft.), medium (155-
235 sq. ft.), and large (236 and greater sq. ft.) room sizes.\22\ The
proposed label also includes the following explanatory text: ``The
Clean Air Delivery Rate is based on the removal of particulate matter
that is 2.5 micrometers wide or smaller (PM2.5 CADR).''
Additionally, the label includes a tertiary disclosure, the model's
efficiency rating (the IEF), which should help consumers understand the
product's energy use. These secondary and tertiary disclosures help
consumers identify models with the appropriate capacity for their needs
and facilitates an apples-to-apples comparison of the energy costs of
relevant models. Manufacturers should not face any undue burden in
disclosing this additional information because this type of information
(e.g., efficiency ratings) is readily available from DOE-mandated test
results, and manufacturers already include such information on most
EnergyGuide labels for other products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
\22\ 88 FR 21752, 21766 (April 11, 2023) (conservation
standards); 88 FR 14014, 14036-14037 (Mar. 6, 2023) (test
procedure); 10 CFR parts 429 and 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposed Rule and consistent with EPCA's requirements,
manufacturers must use the new DOE test procedure to generate
information on the label. In issuing its test procedure, DOE has
resolved or addressed the various commenter issues concerning
testing.\23\ Given DOE's expertise in setting such procedures, the
Commission defers to its conclusions. In addition, the Commission will
set a labeling compliance date consistent with DOE's Tier 2 standards
requirements (Dec. 31, 2025), as suggested by the Joint Commenters.
This date will provide the FTC an opportunity to gather and publish
range information for the new label based on reporting to DOE or other
available sources prior to the compliance date, and otherwise provide
the time necessary for manufacturers to create and incorporate the new
labels on packaging. Consistent with DOE requirements, the proposed
reporting date for these products is December 1 of each year. The
Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal. Among other
things, commenters should address the content, placement, and timing
for the new label, as well as any other relevant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 88 FR 14014 (Mar. 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Clothes Dryers
Background: EPCA designates clothes dryers as covered products in
42 U.S.C. 6292. In 1979, however, the Commission declined to require
labels for these products after finding competing models on the market
had a limited range of energy use.\24\ In 2014, the Commission
reconsidered that decision, and again concluded
[[Page 7569]]
efficiency varied little across available models.\25\ Although the
Commission recognized emerging heat pump models used less energy than
conventional dryers, few, if any, such models were available in the
U.S. at the time. Now, however, heat pump models appear to be more
prevalent in the U.S. market. The ANPR, for example, noted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 44 FR at 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). When
it promulgated 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
at 66467-68.
\25\ 79 FR 34642, 34659 (June 18, 2014); 80 FR 67285, 67296
(Nov. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters split on whether consumers would benefit from
an EnergyGuide label for clothes dryers. Some opponents of a label
asserted it would provide limited benefit to consumers because there is
little variation in energy use among models. Specifically, AHAM and
Whirlpool contended available DOE data suggests most models largely
cluster into three groups: (1) those just meeting current DOE standard
levels, (2) those meeting the ENERGY STAR Clothes Dryer Version 1.1
specification levels, and (3) those qualified for ENERGY STAR 2023
``Most Efficient'' designation. According to AHAM data, only three
percent of shipments and nine percent of electric standard dryer models
fall between the DOE energy conservation standard (group 1) and the
ENERGY STAR level (group 2). Further, only two percent of shipments
outperform the ENERGY STAR (group 3). In short, AHAM asserts available
models largely fall into ``two clumps--either ENERGY STAR or not.''
Thus, ENERGY STAR designations already provide the information needed
to make informed purchasing decisions. Whirlpool added the FTC cannot
demonstrate this variation is great enough to assist consumers in their
purchase decisions, and that labeling benefits outweigh the burden
associated with manufacturers developing and applying labels.
Other commenters disagreed. The California IOUs, for example,
supported ``a label that can easily differentiate the annual operating
costs between products.'' It recommended the label include energy costs
as the primary disclosure, and a list of the underlying assumptions
used to calculate such information, including clothes drying cycles
(per week), utility prices, and test load sizes. In addition,
Earthjustice asserted, dryer labels ``may deliver the greatest
aggregate consumer benefits.'' Citing EPCA's labeling provisions and
past FTC consideration of the issue, it argued, because ``FTC has not
found--nor could it find--that labeling clothes dryers would not be
technologically or economically feasible, labels are required.''
Moreover, Earthjustice argued the past FTC concerns over multiple DOE
test procedures are no longer a barrier to labeling.\26\ Finally,
according to Earthjustice, energy efficiency advances have led to
significant energy use variation among current clothes dryer models
since the FTC last examined the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See 80 FR at 67296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrolux, a manufacturer of clothes dryers, also expressed
support for a dryer label, provided manufacturers have at least a year
to comply. The company noted that, while vented dryers still account
for about ninety percent of models, other options are steadily
increasing. According to Electrolux, these newer products, which use
emerging technologies found in heat pump and condensing models, use
less energy, though with some increase in drying time. Further, even
for traditional vented dryers, the variation between the least and most
efficient models continues to widen. In the absence of an EnergyGuide
label for these products, Electrolux explained, consumers have
difficulty making informed decisions about the true costs and benefits
of the new technology. Electrolux additionally explained manufacturers
typically represent the DOE minimum or ENERGY STAR minimum dryer energy
levels in marketing because without a requirement to disclose detailed,
point-of-sale energy information, little incentive exists to do
otherwise. In Electrolux's opinion, an energy label would encourage
more accurate disclosures. Electrolux provided sample labels featuring
the Combined Energy Factor (``CEF'') \27\ as the primary display
because it ``is the standard metric of the official energy test
procedure and used by the DOE to regulate the dryer energy.'' Finally,
Electrolux stated labeling will add ``significant cost burden,'' which
could be mitigated by using paperless labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ CEF is the metric adopted by DOE to measure the energy
efficiency of clothes dryers. 76 FR 972-01, 976 (Jan. 6, 2011). CEF
is calculated by dividing the weight of the test load (lbs.) by the
sum of the electric energy used by the dryer during both standby and
drying cycles (kWh). See 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. D1 at Sec.
4.7 and App. D2 at Sec. 4.7; see also Clothes Dryers Key Product
Criteria, Energy Star, https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_dryers/key_product_criteria (last visited July
14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California IOUs recommended the dryer label include information
about clothing samples used in the test in addition to the test load
size to ensure consumers understand the testing conditions. They also
urged that the label include the dryer cycle time from a reputable
source such as the ENERGY STAR program because that information is
important to some consumers. Additionally, they recommended the label
contain two ranges, one for the model class (e.g., vented or ventless)
based on similar features, and another combining all model classes.
Finally, the California IOUs explained the DOE test procedure for
automatic termination control dryers requires re-running the test using
the highest dryness level setting if the final moisture content
(``FMC'') from the first test cycle using a default, ``normal,'' or
``medium'' dryness level setting is greater than two percent. These
commenters noted that identifying which dryness setting the test
employed would provide consumers useful information.
Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring an EnergyGuide label
for dryers. Previously, a lack of variation in energy use among similar
dryers limited a label's benefit. However, as commenters indicated, the
market has changed and will likely continue to change as the number of
high-efficiency models steadily increases. For example, recent ENERGY
STAR data lists about 500 standard-size models qualifying for ENERGY
STAR. These models ranged in energy cost from about $30 to $96/year
with multiple variations within that band.\28\ As noted by the
commenters, many models currently clump into three categories of energy
use. However, in the absence of an EnergyGuide label with specific
energy cost estimates, consumers cannot easily gauge the different
energy savings yielded by models falling within the same category.
Moreover, given the progress of energy efficient technology, the
utility of a label will likely increase more in the near future.
Finally, the costs associated with labeling these products should be
similar to those associated with labeling other showroom products such
as refrigerators. The Commission has already determined those costs are
not overly burdensome. Accordingly, consistent with the Commission's
interpretation of the applicable EPCA threshold, no evidence
demonstrates the costs of labeling dryers would ``substantially
outweigh any potential
[[Page 7570]]
benefits to consumers.'' 44 FR at 66467-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Calculated at $0.14/kWh. Out of these ENERGY STAR models,
approximately 150 have an estimated yearly cost of approximately
$95,300 are at approximately $85, 10 at approximately $75, 3 at $64,
and 7 between about $30 and $40. For the most current ENERGY STAR
data, see https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-clothes-dryers/results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with labels for similar appliances, the proposed dryer
label features annual energy costs as the primary disclosure derived
from the DOE test procedure, with a secondary CEF disclosure. The CEF
metric provides consumers with a second way to understand energy use by
disclosing a rating derived from measuring the energy needed to dry a
specific test load, thus augmenting the label's primary yearly energy
cost disclosure. The proposal also divides ranges into standard (4.4
cu. ft. or greater) and compact (smaller than 4.4 cu. ft.) size
categories, reflecting the DOE size categories for these products.
Consistent with similarly-fueled products such as water heaters, the
proposed Rule also contains separate ranges for gas dryers and electric
dryers because most consumers are likely to be in the market for one or
the other and do not comparison shop between those model types.
Finally, consistent with labels for other products and to provide
consumers with the basic assumptions behind the label's estimate, the
proposed label includes a statement explaining the duty cycle (i.e.,
the typical yearly usage) underlying the label calculations (i.e.,
``approximately 5 loads per week'' based on the DOE requirement of 236
per year).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See 86 FR 56608, 56644 (Oct. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also proposes to begin requiring the label when
DOE's new test procedure (``Appendix D2'') becomes applicable to all
dryers, to ensure consistency across all labeled products.\30\ DOE
requirements currently allow manufacturers to use one of two different
test procedures--Appendix D1 or Appendix D2. By waiting until the test
in Appendix D2 applies to all units, the FTC will ensure consistent
information on the label from a single test. Once applicable data is
available, the Commission proposes to publish ranges and provide
manufacturers six months to begin labeling their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix D2. DOE proposed
the required use of Appendix D2 for any future amended energy
conservation standards in a 2022 proposed rule. 87 FR 51734, 51809
(Aug. 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, however, does not propose adding additional
information to the label regarding clothing samples, cycle time, and
models that require two cycles under the DOE test procedure. Such
information will crowd the label and may confuse consumers. In
addition, the results of the DOE test already reflect the significant
costs associated with those models requiring two cycles under the DOE
test procedure.
The Commission seeks comment on whether it should have separate
range categories for vented and ventless models. Specifically,
commenters should address whether consumers are likely to compare
models with such features when shopping. Commenters should also address
whether an annual energy use number as the secondary disclosure would
be more useful to consumers in lieu of the CEF.
D. Miscellaneous Refrigerator Products
Background: DOE has designated miscellaneous refrigerators
(``MREFs'') as covered products under EPCA. This category includes
coolers (e.g., wine chillers) and combination cooler refrigeration
products (i.e., products with warm and cool compartments). Within the
category, some similarly-sized models exhibit a significant range of
energy use. For example, recent DOE data shows freestanding compact
cooler models (those between 3 and 7 cubic feet) use between 100 to 205
kWh/yr.\31\ Moreover, DOE currently has test procedures and standards
for these products.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See DOE Compliance Certification Management System, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
\32\ 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. See 10 CFR parts 429 and 430; 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters addressing MREFs generally supported or did
not oppose labeling these products. For example, Earthjustice noted DOE
has found significant variation in the performance of currently
available models. Specifically, models for the most common type--
freestanding compact coolers with similar capacities--range from ``200
kilowatt hours per year down to half that amount.'' AHAM, which did not
oppose labeling, agreed MREF labels would assist consumers in making
purchasing decisions.
Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring labels for
miscellaneous refrigerators. As discussed above, evidence suggests
labeling will aid consumers in their purchasing decisions. In addition,
no evidence suggests MREF labeling would be economically and
technologically infeasible. The proposed label is consistent with the
freezer label (i.e., yearly energy costs, a single range, and a
secondary disclosure of annual energy use). The Commission proposes a
single table of ranges based on several capacity categories. The MREF
proposal also adopts the placement requirements for refrigerators and
freezers. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate
compliance date for the new labels.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Commenter Wesolowski asked whether the label would cover
the type of powered cooler meant to be plugged into a vehicle. The
proposal only covers products included in DOE's standards program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission seeks information on whether a typical consumer
shopping for such products is likely to consider both ``built-in'' and
``freestanding'' models, and if so whether the proposed categories
should be combined.
E. Portable Electric Spas
Background: The Commission's ANPR sought comment on labeling for
portable electric spas (e.g., hot tubs). In February 2022, DOE
published a tentative determination that portable electric spas qualify
as a covered product under EPCA and followed with a final coverage
determination in September 2022.\34\ DOE estimated more than 3 million
households in the U.S. operate portable electric spas regularly, using
an estimated energy consumption of 1,699 kWh/yr per household
(approximately $238 per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 87 FR 8745 (Feb. 16, 2022); 87 FR 54123 (Sept. 2, 2022)
codified at 10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters addressing portable electric spas generally
supported labeling these products. The California IOUs, for example,
noted that, unlike many showroom appliances, electric spas currently do
not fall under the ENERGY STAR program, which makes identification of
the most efficient spas ``more challenging when shopping online or on
the showroom floor.''
Most commenters focused on the timing of potential labels in light
of ongoing DOE regulatory efforts. For example, Rheem, the Pool & Hot
Tub Alliance (``PHTA''), the International Hot Tub Association
(``IHTA''), and the California IOUs recommended the Commission require
labels after DOE finalizes its coverage determination, test procedures,
and standards. According to PHTA and IHTA, industry members will need
an opportunity to examine the final DOE test procedure before providing
``fully-informed'' comments on label content such as energy costs,
consumption, and efficiency.
With regard to label placement, PHTA and IHTA recommended the Rule
follow industry standard ``APSP-14 Section 7,'' which states: ``The spa
shall be marked by the manufacturer . . .
[[Page 7571]]
where readily visible on the shell or front skirt panel of a spa, or
the container of the inflatable spa during the point of sale.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ According to the California IOUs, portable electric spas
sold in California after June 2019 must bear a consumer-facing label
displaying the spa's average standby power usage. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 20, Sec. 1602 and 1607. These commenters urge FTC to use it as
the basis for a national spa label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The California IOUs provided several content suggestions. First,
they recommended a five-star rating system. Noting FTC's past decision
to reject such a system, based in part over potential confusion between
a five-star rating system and ENERGY STAR disclosures, they argued such
considerations would not apply to spas because of their absence from
the ENERGY STAR program. They also recommended the FTC sort spas by
volume to ensure the labels' ranges compare similarly-sized models.
Finally, they suggested the label prominently feature the tested
ambient temperature ``so consumers can easily discern the difference
between the tested temperature and their climate conditions.''
Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring EnergyGuide labels
for portable electric spas. Available information suggests labeling for
these products would assist consumers in their purchasing decisions.
For example, DOE has found that ratings of certified portable electric
spas in data collected by the California Energy Commission
``demonstrate significant variation in the total power consumption
among different models of standard, combination, and exercise spas that
are currently available.'' \36\ Additionally, no available information
suggests labeling will pose burdens significantly outweighing the
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 87 FR 8745, 8747 (Feb. 16, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with most other labeled products, the proposed label's content
reflects the information generated by the DOE test procedure.\37\ DOE
published its final rule establishing its test procedure on June 13,
2023.\38\ As several commenters noted, this procedure only measures
standby heating costs for spas, not other operating costs (e.g., water
circulation, lights, etc.). However, because standby heating costs
account for the large majority of the product's energy use, the
Commission finds the usage numbers produced by the DOE procedure will
be beneficial to consumers. To ensure consumers understand this
limitation, the bottom of the proposed label states: ``The cost
estimate reflects only the heating cost of this model and does not
include other aspects of operation such as water circulation,
filtration, or lights.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ According to analysis cited by DOE, the mode of operation
measured in the test procedure represents approximately 75 percent
of the energy consumed by a portable electric spa and as high as 95
percent in some cases. 87 FR 63356, 63361 (Oct. 18, 2022).
\38\ 88 FR 38600 (June 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, consistent with the DOE test, a model's ``estimated
yearly heating cost'' would serve as the label's primary disclosure and
reflect the estimated cost associated with continuous standby heating
throughout the year. Specifically, the standard cost information on the
bottom of the proposed label states: ``This label's heating cost
estimate is based on continuous heating throughout the year and a
national average electricity cost of [__] cents per kWh.'' The proposed
label also contains a smaller, secondary disclosure stating ``Energy
Used'' in watts to assist consumers who are interested in comparing the
respective watts used by the hot tub on standby and by other energy-
consuming products in their home. Finally, the proposed Rule requires
disclosures of ``fill volume'' to provide a key underlying metric
behind the energy use disclosure.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ As the California IOUs indicated, the Commission considered
and declined to adopt a five-star labeling system for reasons fully
explained in an earlier proceeding. See 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007).
The Commission declines to revisit those issues here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission seeks comments on whether the Rule should require
such a capacity disclosure and, if so, whether ``fill volume'' is an
appropriate metric. In addition, given the marked difference in the
size and functionality of spas, the Commission requests commenters to
address whether the Rule should contain separate range categories for
spas, separated by capacity and/or spa type (e.g., standard and
exercise spas). The Commission also seeks information on the
appropriate placement for the label (e.g., on the product itself, on
packaging, or included inside the packaging, etc.), whether these
products are typically displayed in retail brick-and-mortar stores,
and, if so, whether they are displayed outside of packaging. Finally,
commenters should address whether retailers should have a role in
displaying the spa label, similar to the proposal in this document for
appliances (see Section V infra).
F. Residential Ice Makers
Background: Consumers can purchase residential icemakers in various
configurations, including portable, non-portable, and uncooled storage.
DOE research has found residential ice makers consume a significant
amount of energy, and that there are significant energy use differences
both across and within these configurations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See Preliminary Technical Support Document EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0043-0024, Section 7.2.3 and Table 7.2.4, DOE, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters specifically addressing residential ice makers
opposed labeling for these products.\41\ According to AHAM and
Whirlpool, the DOE commercial test procedure is not appropriate for
residential models. According to these commenters, the residential
models, in contrast to commercial models, generally have lower
capacity, are stand-alone, and are used infrequently in low volumes.
Further, according to Whirlpool, little data exists, either from DOE or
manufacturers, to compare the energy efficiency of residential ice
maker models, even using the automatic commercial ice maker test
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Some commenters (e.g., California IOUs) generally supported
labeling for new product categories, like residential ice makers,
without further elaboration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, in the DOE proceeding, AHAM opposed DOE's four-pound-per-
day usage metric, arguing reliance on the number would mislead
consumers because no data supported the assumption behind it. Instead,
AHAM urged DOE to study average daily ice use for the residential
products and use those assumptions to determine whether standards are
justified under EPCA.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ AHAM further argued that, since DOE has designated all ice
makers, including residential icemakers, producing less than 50
pounds per day as ``commercial'' products, such products fall
outside of the FTC's authority to require labels only for ``consumer
products'' under EPCA. See 87 FR 65856 (Nov. 1, 2022); 42 U.S.C.
6291(1); 42 U.S.C. 6294(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission does not propose a label for residential
ice makers at this time. Given the uncertainties regarding energy use,
the absence of a test procedure specifically tailored to residential
(consumer) models, and ongoing concerns expressed by commenters about
the applicability of the commercial test to residential models, the
Commission will continue to monitor developments related to these
products and revisit the issue if warranted.
G. Humidifiers
Background: Consumers use residential humidifiers either to
increase or maintain the humidity levels in all or parts of the home or
to ease illness symptoms.\43\ There are currently no DOE or EPA ENERGY
STAR
[[Page 7572]]
standards or test procedures for these products. However, a 2012 ENERGY
STAR report found there were differences in energy consumption among
competing humidifiers, particularly for whole-house models.\44\ The
report also stated there was ``very little, if any, correlation between
humidification capacity (in square feet) and watt rating.'' The report
concluded consumers could collectively save an estimated 3.4 terawatts
of electricity over the lifetime of these products by choosing energy-
efficient humidifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 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).
\44\ ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: Residential
Humidifiers (Oct. 2012), available at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY_STAR_Scoping_Report_Residential_Humidifiers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: The two commenters addressing this product in detail
opposed labeling. Specifically, AHRI and AHAM argued labeling was not
appropriate due to the lack of DOE (or industry) test procedures or
standards, and the lack of evidence labeling would aid consumers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ AHAM argued that 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3)(B) prohibits labeling
for these products unless there is a DOE test procedure. However,
that provision applies only to products DOE has designated as a
covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20). DOE has made no
such a designation for humidifiers. The Commission has separate
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) to ``require labeling or other
disclosures in accordance with this subsection for any consumer
product not specified in this subsection or section 6292 of this
title if the Commission determines that labeling for the product is
likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI disagreed with conclusions in the 2012 ENERGY STAR report. It
attributed EPA's findings to ``a lack of understanding of adiabatic and
steam product operation.'' In contrast to the report, AHRI argued that
the energy input for the two primary types of systems--steam and
adiabatic--are ``quite comparable,'' and observed little variability in
the energy input between current brands/models.\46\ Finally, no
commenter identified a separate test procedure suitable for humidifier
labeling or otherwise provided specific support for labeling these
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ AHAM's comment provided a detailed discussion of technical
issues related to energy input for steam and adiabatic models. It
explained the lack of variation among models stems from the fact
that the energy required to change water to humidifying mist is
comparable for both types of models and that this energy accounts
for most of a humidifier's energy consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission does not now propose requiring labeling
for humidifiers. Doing so would be premature in the absence of a DOE
test procedure or a suitable substitute. The Commission acknowledges
the inconsistencies between the industry comments and the 2012 EPA
report regarding relative energy use. However, in the absence of an
applicable test procedure, there is no need to now address this issue
further. The Commission will continue to monitor developments related
to potential labeling for these products.
H. Miscellaneous Gas Products
Background: In February 2022, DOE tentatively determined
miscellaneous gas products, such as decorative hearths and outdoor
heaters, qualify as covered products under EPCA.\47\ These products
include fireplaces, fire pits, and similar products that have
decorative purposes but can also provide heat. DOE proposed defining
``decorative hearth product'' as gas-fired appliances that simulate a
solid-fueled fireplace or present a flame pattern. DOE's proposed
definition includes products: (1) designed for indoor and/or outdoor
use; (2) not designed to be operated with a thermostat; (3) not
designed to provide space heating to the indoor space in which they are
installed; and (4) not designed to provide heat proximate to the unit.
DOE estimates suggest these products can generate substantial energy
costs for consumers.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 87 FR 6786 (Feb. 7, 2022).
\48\ See 87 FR at 6792. DOE also discussed these general issues
in 2013. 78 FR 79638, 79640 (Dec. 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters specifically addressing miscellaneous gas
products generally opposed labeling requirements, arguing any such
requirements are premature given ongoing work related to defining
categories, establishing test procedures, and setting standards. For
example, AHRI stated the ``product class is vast, varied, and only
recently covered by DOE.'' Further, the test procedure development
process has not begun. AHRI also discussed the broad array of products
in this category and identified industry test procedures, some of which
do not contain provisions for efficiency metrics.\49\ Similarly,
several natural gas industry organizations (the ``Group'') argued
because DOE has not completed its work on establishing efficiency
levels and test procedures for several of these products, a labeling
rule would be premature and could risk ``communicating incomplete or
inaccurate information to a consumer.'' The Group also noted the DOE
coverage determination for these products is currently undergoing a
legal challenge, which could alter their status under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ In its comments, AHRI discussed vented decorative gas
appliances, various gas fireplace appliances, outdoor decorative gas
appliances, covering gas pits, fire tables, and gas-fired outdoor
infrared patio heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these DOE-related concerns, TIC Council cautioned an
EnergyGuide label may suggest these products are energy-efficient.\50\
Finally, AHRI argued, given the variety and different uses of these
products, ``it is very difficult to envision a label that would help
inform consumers.'' Specifically, according to AHRI, some products are
sold by contractors and many as part of new home construction, where
consumers are unlikely to see the labels prior to purchase. AHRI also
suggested the label would be obtrusive and detract from a product's
decorative nature, particularly outdoor products such as patio heaters
``that are integral to the ambience.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Without further elaboration, commenter Merriam suggested
adding space heaters in addition to the Miscellaneous gas products
(``Hearth Products'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission does not now propose labeling
requirements for miscellaneous gas products. Given the array of product
types and the early stages of DOE test procedure promulgation, the
Commission will continue to follow developments for this product
category and, if appropriate, address potential labeling at a future
date.
I. Cooking Tops
Background: EPCA lists ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' as covered
products.\51\ In 1979, the Commission decided not to require labels for
cooking tops, as well as ranges and ovens, because of the small
variability of energy use between models.\52\ Recent DOE research,
however, found energy consumption for gas cooking top models now 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.\53\ While DOE withdrew its test
procedure for these products in August 2020,\54\ in 2022, DOE
reestablished a test procedure for conventional cooking tops.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10).
\52\ 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.'').
\53\ 81 FR 60784, 60800-02 (Sept. 2, 2016).
\54\ 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18, 2020).
\55\ See 87 FR 51492 (Aug. 22, 2022)); 86 FR 60974 (Nov. 4,
2021) (results of round robin testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: One commenter, the California IOUs, supported labeling.
[[Page 7573]]
Specifically, this group urged the Commission to include on the label
the cooktop's duty cycle using the DOE test procedure (418 kWh/yr at 31
minutes per cycle) in a way that helps consumers relate these use
assumptions to their personal use.
Most commenters addressing this issue, however, opposed labeling,
raising various questions about the viability of labeling these
products.\56\ For example, AHAM and Whirlpool argued EnergyGuide labels
for gas cooking products are premature because stakeholders have
identified several outstanding concerns with the recently finalized
test procedures. Specifically, they asserted the DOE test procedure is
``highly variable'' (i.e., raises repeatability and reproducibility
concerns) and thus may not ``provide a `good basis' for consumers to
compare cooktops.'' In addition, AHAM and Whirlpool noted, because the
DOE procedure is new, limited data is available from which to determine
whether an adequate differentiation among products exists to warrant
labeling. Based on its initial review, AHAM stated there may be little
difference in energy use among the products but is working to collect
data to further evaluate test results. Whirlpool added that DOE's
testing does not provide information about the efficiency of a broad
range of representative models in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Natural gas industry organizations (the ``Group'') raised
similar concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM also asserted conducting DOE's current test is unduly
burdensome, and thus labeling would not be economically feasible.
Further, because there is no test procedure for ovens, AHAM suggested
labels applied only to cooktops (which are often attached to ovens)
will confuse consumers. Finally, AHAM asserts conflicts with Canadian
test procedures could cause further confusion; and therefore, the FTC
should wait ``until such time as the two countries harmonize their
requirements.''
Discussion: At this time, the Commission has insufficient
information to change its previous determination. Specifically, given
the absence of data demonstrating variability of energy use among
competing products, the Commission will continue to follow developments
for this product category and, if appropriate, address labeling at a
future date.
J. Additional Lamps (Light Bulbs)
Background: The Rule's Lighting Facts label currently covers an
array of lamp (i.e., light bulb) types and allows manufacturers to use
the label on lamp products not covered by the Rule. The Rule
specifically covers general purpose and specialty consumer lamps used
in typical household applications, and excludes products where labeling
is unlikely to provide substantial benefit. In the ANPR, the Commission
sought comment on whether to cover lamp types not currently specified
in the Rule, particularly 25-watt incandescent bulbs and full color
``tunable'' lamps with adjustable color.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters specifically addressing lamp labeling opposed
expanding existing requirements. Specifically, the National Electrical
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') asserted these lamp types (e.g.,
25-watt incandescent and lower) are often used in commercial
applications where their use varies significantly from typical
household lamps and are not typically purchased by consumers as direct
replacements for ordinary light bulbs.\58\ In addition, they contend
that ``tunable'' adjustable-color lamps provide benefits beyond those
of general service lamps, so their application and use are not
comparable to that of labeled lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ NEMA expressed support for the existing label's coverage,
identifying the label as an example of ``how consistent labeling can
support a market change'' and noting its widely recognizable format
``strikes an optimal balance of information provided and
accommodations of the physical constraints.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: Commenters did not identify a compelling reason to
expand the existing coverage of the lamp label. The label already
covers most consumer lamps, and the Commission lacks evidence that
expansion to include narrow categories would generate significant
benefits. Moreover, using assumptions applicable to most residential
bulbs to label commercial lamps could lead to consumer confusion and
outright deception. Therefore, at this time, the Commission does not
propose expanding the Rule's scope to cover additional types of lamps.
V. Issues Relating to Existing Products
Several comments raised issues about products already labeled under
the Rule. These included proposals to (1) change the clothes washer
label content, (2) include handwashing information on the dishwasher
label, (3) eliminate range information on television labels, and (4)
improve the Rule's provisions for water heaters, pool heaters, and
boilers.
A. Clothes Washer Labels
Background and Comments: Two commenters recommended changing the
clothes washer label to include information about a model's ability to
reduce moisture (e.g., the final moisture content (``FMC'') of the
washed load) and thus ultimately use less energy. According to these
commenters, the absence of this information misleads consumers
regarding the true energy cost of washing clothes because more moisture
at the end of the cycle means the dryer requires more energy. The
California IOUs, which argued for incorporating drying energy costs
into the current yearly energy cost estimate, provided data
demonstrating significant differences in FMC among washers, ranging
from about 31 to 51 percent. Their analysis showed these differences
caused corresponding substantial variations in estimated yearly energy
costs after factoring in drying energy.
Similarly, Electrolux commented the current label's annual energy
consumption (``AEC''), i.e., yearly energy use in kWh disclosure does
not properly assist consumers because it is missing the ``largest
component of energy efficiency for washers, the energy to dry the
remaining moisture left in the washer load.'' According to Electrolux,
the ability to remove moisture varies significantly among models for
different classes, sizes, and brands.
To address these concerns, Electrolux proposed a modified label
displaying the DOE standard for clothes washers using an Integrated
Modified Energy Factor (``IMEF''), a metric which accounts for energy
needed to remove remaining moisture.\59\ It further recommended
displaying an accompanying range showing the best and least efficient
washer range for IMEF across all washers and classes. According to
Electrolux, because the DOE standard accounts for drying energy, it
provides a more accurate way to compare washer models than AEC, which
only accounts for washer energy. Under its proposal, the label would
display AEC as a secondary disclosure. Alternatively, Electrolux
suggested including annual drying cost into the washer's energy cost
disclosure, using a
[[Page 7574]]
different cost metric such as ``Effective Energy Cost'' to avoid
confusion.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The Integrated Modified Energy Factor measures the energy
efficiency of a clothes washer as the quotient of the capacity of
the clothes container divided by the total clothes washer energy
consumption per cycle, which includes ``the energy required for
removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.'' 10 CFR Pt.
430, Subpt. B, App. J2.
\60\ The California IOUs also recommended the inclusion of a
model's cycle time on the label ``when this data becomes available
from a reputable source'' because it is an essential consideration
for some consumers. According to the commenters, DOE's May 2022 test
procedure provides this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The inclusion of information reflecting a washer's
ability to reduce moisture content could help consumers with their
purchasing decisions. However, it is unclear whether consumers would
understand the IMEF disclosure, including its relation to moisture
content.\61\ In addition, relegating the annual energy cost estimate to
a secondary disclosure could undermine the effectiveness of that
disclosure. Therefore, the Commission declines to include IMEF on the
washer label at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ In addition to the IMEF, the DOE standard cited in
Electrolux's proposal also measures the Integrated Water Factor
(``IWF''), which represents the total weighted per-cycle water
consumption for all wash cycles in gallons for each cubic foot (or
liter) of clothes washer capacity. 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App.
J2. Like Electrolux's proposed IMEF disclosure, it is unclear
whether consumers would understand an IWF disclosure or use it when
making purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, given the issues raised by the comments, the
Commission seeks further comment on whether the Rule should require a
disclosure for the additional cost of removing moisture from clothes
and other related information, and, if so, how manufacturers should
calculate this information and how the EnergyGuide label should present
such information in a helpful and not confusing way. For example,
manufacturers could derive annual energy cost estimates for moisture
removal by multiplying the number of wash cycles per year by the per
cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load.
Alternatively, DOE could consider amending its test procedure to
specify the means for generating this information.
B. Dishwashers
Background and Comments: The California IOUs recommended including
information about the costs of handwashing on the dishwasher label.
Specifically, according to these commenters, handwashing dishes uses
substantially more energy and water than an ENERGY STAR-rated
dishwasher. They also recommended the label include a dishwasher's
cycle time using DOE test results, given its importance to consumers.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose amending the dishwasher
label to reflect handwashing costs. The California IOUs have not
identified relevant data demonstrating that dishwasher shoppers want to
compare the cost of handwashing to the machine's operating cost, and
the FTC is unaware of any such data. In the absence of such data, the
FTC concludes that the disclosure is unlikely to be helpful to most
consumers. Further, the additional information would likely clutter the
label, and thus, may detract from its effectiveness. The disclosure
also could confuse consumers who may think the label's handwashing
costs are associated with the model's operation. Balancing these
considerations, a specific dishwasher disclosure is not warranted.
However, sellers may present information about handwashing through
consumer education materials separate from the label.
Similarly, the Commission does not propose including a dishwasher's
cycle time on the label. Although this information, like many other
metrics related to the product (e.g., dimensions), may be useful for
consumers, it is not clear it is needed to help consumers understand
the energy label. Moreover, manufacturers can provide this information
through technical specifications in manuals and marketing materials.
C. Television Ranges
Background and Comments: CTA, an association representing
television manufacturers, urged the Commission to eliminate
comparability ranges for television labels, ``in light of changing
technology and online availability of information to consumers.''
Noting FTC's discretion under EPCA to exclude ranges from television
labels, CTA argued the ranges are not helpful to consumers for three
reasons. First, given rapid changes to available models driven in part
by constantly evolving technology, attempts to estimate ranges are
futile ``because the data becomes quickly outdated almost as soon as it
is set.'' Second, CTA stated well-established resources exist for
product comparisons, including consumer and trade publications and
product reviews. Third, consumers can already make energy use
comparisons based on the most significant element of the EnergyGuide
label, the estimated yearly energy cost.
Discussion: Comparability ranges for televisions, while not
mandatory under EPCA,\62\ make it easier to compare a particular
model's operating cost relative to others available in the market, and
to see where that model falls in the whole market for similar products.
Consumers could perform these tasks with the estimated yearly energy
cost disclosure, but that would be significantly more difficult than
reviewing ranges on a label because consumers would have to find the
energy usage of all comparable models on their own. On the other hand,
rapid market changes may quickly render disclosed ranges obsolete while
imposing compliance burdens on manufacturers. Further, eliminating the
ranges but maintaining the same font and text size for the other
information would simplify the label, thus, making is easier to use.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on CTA's proposal (see sample
label at Illustration 1). Commenters should address the costs and
benefits of the proposal, including the timing for such a transition,
should the Commission decide to eliminate the ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(9) (giving the FTC discretion over
labeling requirements for certain covered products, including
televisions listed in subsection (a)(2)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P>
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.006
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
[[Page 7575]]
D. Water Heaters
Background and Comments: Rheem, a water heater manufacturer,
suggested several label changes for instantaneous (i.e., ``on-demand'')
water heaters. First, it recommended allowing manufacturers to affix
the label to gas-fired instantaneous water heater packages (instead of
the product itself).\63\ According to Rheem, since these units
frequently operate in visible living spaces, the label may be
aesthetically undesirable on the product. Second, it recommended a
smaller label for both gas-fired and electric instantaneous water
heater packages because the packaging profile for many models is not
much larger than the EnergyGuide label itself, leaving limited room for
other important product information and advertising. To support its
position, Rheem cited Rule provisions allowing smaller labels and
different space-saving configurations in other contexts (e.g.,
television labels and labels in paper catalogs).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The Rule currently makes this allowance for electric
instantaneous water heaters only. 16 CFR 305.13(e)(3).
\64\ In addition, Rheem recommended against any label changes
that would add information featured on European labels, such as
decibel level, demand response capability, and a map indicating how
a heat pump water heater will perform in different regions. The
Commission has not proposed such changes. Rheem also urged the FTC
to work with DOE to ensure labeling requirements are consistent with
recent DOE proposals to apply the conservation standards to consumer
water heaters. It also recommended a correction to size category
references 16 CFR 305.17(a)(9) related to alignment with those in
Appendix E. The Commission addressed this issue in a January 2023
Final Rule; correction and correcting amendment. See 88 FR 1135
(Jan. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem also raised a separate issue about boilers. It observed some
boilers operate as combination space/water heaters. The current test
procedure, however, does not address these combined functions.
Therefore, Rheem recommended the Rule require text stating these
products can be used for space and water heating.
Discussion: In response to the comments, the Commission proposes
allowing the labels for instantaneous gas models to appear on packaging
because of the difficulties in affixing the label to the product itself
and the likelihood that few such models are displayed out of the box.
Given the packaging size, the Commission also proposes decreasing the
size of the labels for both instantaneous electric and gas-fired water
heaters by one-third (see Illustration 2) to leave room on product
boxes for other important information. This size reduction should not
detract from the label's usefulness because the text and font size on
the label will be identical to the existing label. Finally, the
Commission does not propose changing the label to inform consumers
particular water heater models can also be used for space heating. The
Commission is concerned that adding this information to the label may
cause confusion (e.g., suggesting the label's water heating information
applies to the product's space heating operation). However,
manufacturers may instead inform consumers about the product's space
heating capabilities in statements off the label, on packaging, and its
advertising.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
[[Page 7576]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.007
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
E. Pool Heaters
Background and Comments: The Rule currently requires manufacturers
to label pool heaters using thermal efficiency as the primary
disclosure. In Rheem's view, the current label does not provide
consumers with the information necessary to make informed purchasing
decisions because it does not include fuel type, capacity, and a
comparability range of either efficiency or annual energy cost. Rheem
noted in the past the FTC has refrained from requiring additional
information due to limitations in the DOE's pool heater test
procedure.\65\ However, Rheem now explains DOE has updated its test
procedure to include a new efficiency metric (integrated thermal
efficiency) and to provide a method to derive other important
information such as estimated annual energy costs. Rheem did note DOE's
updated procedure lacks a clear delineation of capacity.\66\ Therefore,
Rheem urged the FTC to urge DOE to include appropriate capacity metrics
in its final rule for consumer pool heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See, e.g., 72 FR 49948, 49953-54 (Aug. 29, 2007).
\66\ Rheem noted DOE regulations require manufacturers to
certify the input capacity of each gas-fired pool heater model. 10
CFR 429.24(b)(2). However, DOE's ongoing energy conservation
standards rulemaking proposal would effectively require heat pump
technology on these products. Since heat pump pool heaters move heat
instead of generating heat, DOE argued output capacity may be a
better capacity metric than input capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission seeks comment on amending the pool
heater label to include an annual operating cost disclosure and
additional information (e.g., fuel type, capacity, etc.) consistent
with other EnergyGuide labels.\67\ Commenters should also address any
specific issues related to capacity disclosures for these products.
Additionally, since DOE's changes to the pool heater standards will not
become effective until 2028,\68\ the Commission seeks comment on
whether any label changes should coincide with this DOE compliance
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Most EnergyGuide labels required by part 305 routinely
display some sort of capacity figure.
\68\ 88 FR 34624 (May 30, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Boilers
Background and Comments: As discussed below, several boiler
manufacturers commented on labeling issues for their products. Four
manufacturers recommended significant changes, and two others opposed
any changes to the Rule's current approach.
Specifically, manufacturers WM Technologies and Marley Engineered
Products (together, ``The Marley Company'') recommended allowing
manufacturers to consolidate energy-related information for multiple
models within a product family onto a single label, in order to
minimize manufacturers' burden of maintaining multiple model-specific
labels as required by the current Rule. Similarly, manufacturers Crown
and Burnham (``Crown'') recommended replacing the current model-
specific labels with a common QR code or similar feature directing
consumers ``to an on-line source where the Energy Guide `label'
[[Page 7577]]
for that model could be easily found (e.g., the AHRI Directory).''
Crown observed consumers do not purchase boilers in showrooms because
the choice of an appropriate boiler requires the expertise of a
contractor. Boilers operate as part of a system that includes fuel,
heating capacity, heating medium, operating water temperature range,
and venting. In Crown's view, only trained professionals have the
expertise to weigh these factors to determine which boilers can operate
safely, reliably, and efficiently in a particular home. Thus, requiring
manufacturers to include model-specific energy consumption data on the
boilers themselves makes little sense. Faced with a choice provided by
contractors, Crown explained consumers often research boiler models and
brands prior to purchase, but do so using on-line resources and/or
printed literature. Accordingly, Crown stated that replacing the
current model-specific label with a feature directing consumers to an
online resource would be more helpful to consumers.
Additionally, Crown recommended eliminating the requirement that
labels be affixed to boilers. Instead, it suggested the Rule allow
manufacturers to include the label as a paper insert or tag either hung
on the boiler or inserted in an envelope with the manual and other
documentation. Crown noted modern boilers are much smaller than past
models and finding space for the label ``has been a growing challenge''
adding cost and assembly time. In its opinion, the EnergyGuide labels
not only ``detract from appliance appearance'' but ``more importantly,
compete for consumer attention with labels that convey important post
purchase information, including safe installation and operation. Such a
change would also address challenges with ensuring the appropriate
materials and adhesives are employed to keep labels on products.
Other manufacturers did not support any changes to the current
label. Bradford White (``BWC'') explained it has not received any
feedback from customers, or product end-users, to indicate the current
label fails to clearly communicate important information to consumers.
In addition, BWC observed the current information on labels aligns with
DOE's requirements. Rheem also did not recommend any changes to
existing boiler labels.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Rheem also explained, consistent with past FTC positions,
an annual energy cost would have limited value to consumers because
it is based on national average heating load hours and thus will not
adequately represent a consumer's actual operating cost. Therefore,
Rheem recommended the Commission retain the efficiency comparability
range. In addition, similar to its recommendation for pool heaters,
Rheem recommended the FTC work with DOE to include the appropriate
capacity metrics in the certification requirements in the energy
conservation standard final Rule for consumer boilers. Finally,
Rheem noted the cost information link on the label directs consumers
to DOE's general database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate issue, the Marley Company and Crown recommended
eliminating inconsistencies in the requirements for labeling boilers
and furnaces. The Marley Company noted installers can configure both
oil and gas boilers for capacities different from the one preset by the
manufacturer, but the Rule currently allows only labels for oil boilers
to list information for these alternative capacities. It recommended
eliminating this inconsistency by allowing labels for both oil and gas
boilers to include alternative capacities information. In addition,
Crown noted Sec. 305.20(f)(11) requires manufacturers to use the
boiler's lowest attainable AFUE rating to label multiple-input boilers
with more than one input nozzle to be installed in the field. In
contrast, Sec. Sec. 305.4(a) and 305.20(f)(13) require manufacturers
to label the same boilers with the AFUE rating for input capacity set
by the manufacturer. Crown also explained these sections could be read
to set different labeling standards for multiple-input boilers and for
furnaces when ``no logical reason'' justifies the difference. Crown
proposed language for Sec. 305.20(f)(11) and (13) to eliminate these
apparent discrepancies.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing the general
content of existing boiler labels.\70\ Consistent with comments from
BWC and Rheem, there is no clear evidence the current label fails to
assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. In addition, allowing
labels with information for multiple models within a product family
would likely crowd the label and make it more difficult for consumers
to use.\71\ Similarly, moving to a QR-type label would likely erode the
label's benefits because it would require consumers to take additional
steps to access the information (see further discussion at Section VI
infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ In response to Rheem's comment, the proposed amendments
also correct a typographical error in the DOE published number for
the energy equivalence of No. 2 heating oil.
\71\ The Marley Company appears to propose the optional use of
labels with information for multiple models for not only boilers but
all products covered by the Rule. Because the additional information
would tend to crowd these labels as well, the Commission also
declines to propose the use of such labels with respect to these
other products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, however, seeks further comment on whether it should
amend the Rule's boiler label placement. Specifically, given the
concerns discussed above, commenters should address whether the Rule
should allow manufacturers to ship the label with the product in lieu
of affixing the label to the unit (see also Section VI infra). The
Commission is not proposing such a change at this time because it lacks
sufficient information on whether shipping labels with the product
would undermine the label's effectiveness.
Finally, the Commission proposes adopting the proposed language to
Sec. 305.20 offered by Crown and other clarifying language to address
concerns raised by Crown and the Marley Company regarding discrepancies
in labeling requirements for boilers and furnaces (see proposed
Sec. Sec. 305.10(h), 305.20(f)(11) and (13), and 305.22(c)). As
suggested by the commenters, the proposed amendments adopt a consistent
approach for labeling boilers with more than one input nozzle to be
installed in the field, clarify that the same standard applies to both
boilers and furnaces, and remove an inconsistency in labeling oil and
gas boilers and furnaces.\72\ Commenters should address whether this
clarifying amendment is helpful and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ For multiple-input furnaces and boilers with no factory-
installed nozzle, the proposed label discloses the lowest AFUE
rating obtainable by the system. For those with at least one
factory-installed nozzle, the proposed label discloses the AFUE
rating associated with the input capacity set by the manufacturer.
Regardless of whether the boiler or furnace is fueled by oil, the
proposed label may include optional information regarding the
product's alternative capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns
In the ANPR, the Commission solicited comments on alternatives to
the current ``showroom-ready'' approach. The Commission additionally
requested any recent research or data demonstrating when and where
consumers typically make purchasing decisions for the types of products
covered by the Rule. In this section, the Commission discusses comments
regarding current shopping trends and label placement, and proposes new
label placement requirements for showroom appliances.
A. Comments on Shopping Trends
Several commenters (e.g., AHAM, Whirlpool, and the California IOUs)
highlighted the increasing tendency of consumers to research major
appliances online before making a purchase, even when they make the
purchase in-store. Moreover, the commenters noted consumers are
increasingly comfortable with buying large consumer products without
visiting a store. For example,
[[Page 7578]]
the California IOUs pointed to a 2013 GE Capital study showing 81
percent of consumers research major appliances costing $500 or more
online before purchasing, with 88 percent of respondents ultimately
making their purchase in-store. They also cited a more recent 2021
study by Bain and Company finding 26 percent of global consumers were
``more willing to buy appliances online than they were prior to the
pandemic.'' The California IOUs concluded online information is a
``critical driver for consumer purchases'' but acknowledged most
consumers still make their final purchase decisions in physical stores.
In their view, these trends highlight the continued need for labels on
showroom floors while pointing to the additional utility of QR codes
for online research and for providing multilingual information.
In addition, AHAM noted, in 2012, two-thirds of consumers
researched models online prior to purchasing an appliance, whereas, in
2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ``close to 90 percent of
consumers'' conducted such online research, and 80 percent planned to
continue such online research after the pandemic.
AHAM and Whirlpool also observed once consumers visit a showroom
after conducting preliminary research online, energy efficiency becomes
less important to their final in-store decisions.\73\ Moreover,
according to AHAM, the ENERGY STAR logo, annual energy consumption, and
annual operating cost information rank in the bottom half of
``identified characteristics'' by consumers. Instead, consumers focus
on other purchase factors, primarily the product's purchase price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ According to Whirlpool, consumers look for energy
efficiency but generally do not want to pay more for it or
compromise on product performance. Further, consumers generally do
not notice large differences in efficiency once they shop in the
stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool also noted the decrease in the amount of printed
information sellers use at the point of purchase and an increase in
their use of online information, including information linked through
QR codes. According to Whirlpool, many consumers never read point-of-
purchase materials nor keep them for future reference. Instead,
consumers often expect to access such material remotely through QR
codes. Whirlpool further asserted that although some printed material
or labels are helpful during product setup or to comply with regulatory
requirements, product information is ``increasingly only found online,
at no apparent detriment to the consumer.'' Whirlpool's own research
found consumers ``noticed and liked QR codes used in retail stores to
scan and locate more product information on their appliances.''
Consumers also liked QR codes as an alternative to paper literature and
labels, which can be easily lost or not transferred from previous
homeowners. Its research found a strong majority of consumers would
find a QR code linking to more information online to ``be helpful to
their in-store shopping experience.''
Commenter Merriam emphasized how energy-efficient appliances can
help meet climate goals and ensure electricity system reliability. In
doing so, it highlighted several key points from recent studies on
consumers' purchasing decisions. For instance, one European study found
annual energy expenditures communicated in the form of a monetary value
increased the likelihood consumers would purchase an energy-efficient
appliance.\74\ Another found consumers tend to focus on a label's
``headline'' and were likely to purchase energy-efficient equipment,
especially where the cost of operating the equipment is expensive.\75\
Based on this research, Merriam recommended continued use of annual
energy costs as the primary disclosure, which ``provide simple and
consistent messaging about the range or rating of cost energy
savings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See Julia Blasch, Massimo Filippini, & Nilkanth Kumar,
``Boundedly Rational Consumers, Energy & Investment Literacy, &
Display of Info. on Household Appliances,'' Resource & Energy Econ.,
Recent Advances in Econ. Analysis of Energy Demand--Insights for
Indus. & Households, May 2019, Vol. 56, 39-58, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.06.001.
\75\ Lucas W. Davis & Gilbert E. Metcalf, ``Does Better Info.
Lead to Better Choices? Evidence from Energy-Efficiency Labels.'' J.
of Ass'n of Envtl. & Resource Economists, Sept. 2016, Vol. 3 No. 3,
589-625, available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w20720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments on Label Placement for Showroom Appliances
As discussed below, several commenters offered proposals to
restructure the Rule's requirements for label placement and
presentation. Generally, manufacturers urged a shift to a virtual or
``electronic label,'' which would provide consumers access to energy
information through a QR code link or similar feature. Other commenters
argued against any approach eliminating physical labels in stores.
Finally, industry commenters urged the Commission to provide adequate
lead-time to make any changes necessary to comply with Rule amendments.
Major Showroom Appliances: Commenters offered different opinions
about the Commission's approach to labeling major showroom appliances.
Some, particularly Earthjustice and NYSERDA, urged the FTC to
ensure labels are available to consumers in stores and to maximize
label accessibility. Specifically, Earthjustice argued eliminating
showroom labels is inconsistent with EPCA, which states the FTC ``shall
require that each covered product in the type or class of covered
products to which the [Rule] applies bear a label which discloses'' the
information of the sort provided on an EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts
label. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). Further, in Earthjustice's view, the
label's ubiquitous presence on covered products ``helps to improve
consumers' familiarity with the label.'' Even if a consumer does not
see the label until after purchase, its presence increases the
likelihood the consumer ``will later become aware of the label and the
information it conveys.'' Such ``after-the-fact'' awareness, in
Earthjustice's view, increases the likelihood consumers will use the
label for future purchases. In addition, NYSERDA argued energy labels
are ``most impactful when they can be readily accessed wherever a
consumer may be looking for them, be that online, in stores, or in a
showroom.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Several commenters similarly recommended the Commission
ensure labels are available in showrooms for consumers to examine
(see, e.g., DuSaint, Ring (also saying the label should be available
in the product packaging or literature bag), Wesolowski, Davis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, industry members recommended major changes to the
label placement requirements. AHAM, which has long supported a shift
from paper to electronic labels, argued the technology and
infrastructure is now available to ``easily permit the electronic
delivery of label information.'' AHAM noted manufacturers already
provide label information online to comply with existing Rule
provisions (see, e.g., Sec. Sec. 305.9, 305.11(a)(5), and 305.27).
Therefore, it proposed a transition away from ``outdated'' physical
labels to reliance on labels online, citing research indicating
consumers examine product information online before going to brick-and-
mortar stores for purchase. Specifically, it recommended ``flexible
approaches to allow manufacturers and retailers to deliver the label
content, in an electronic format to consumers.''
Whirlpool also recommended giving manufacturers flexibility,
whether through a QR code printed in product literature (e.g., in a
quick start guide), on the packaging for some covered
[[Page 7579]]
products, and/or through a label permanently affixed to the product
itself in a prominent location. Whirlpool further recommended adding
explanatory text to the label directing consumers to a website with
information about the product's energy efficiency and operating costs.
AHAM emphasized the need for different approaches depending on the
product categories (e.g., products displayed in a box compared to
unpackaged units displayed on showroom floors). For products displayed
in boxes, such as air cleaners, it proposed requiring a QR code. For
major appliances displayed on showrooms, AHAM stated its members would
``be open to QR codes on the product and/or on the owner's manual as an
option so long as the requirements are flexible.''
AHAM also cited benefits from electronic labeling, arguing a label
available online would be more impactful because a consumer's
``appliance purchase journey starts with online research.'' In AHAM's
view, printed labels shipped inside appliance units (e.g., clothes
washers, dishwashers, and refrigerators) ultimately do not assist
consumers because the purchase has already occurred when they see the
label. AHAM contends consumers likely discard such labels immediately
upon installation. Thus, it concluded a shift to purely electronic
labeling would eliminate redundant paper labels, involve few regulatory
changes, and ``dramatically reduce regulatory burden and cost'' related
to printing, affixing, and shipping labels.\77\ It also stressed this
change would ``be more sustainable'' because it would dramatically
decrease the paper and ink used to comply with the Rule. According to
Whirlpool, who agreed that many labels are often discarded without
helping consumers, the resources needed to print and ship these labels
are a ``very non-sustainable practice.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ According to Whirlpool, such an approach will make future
label updates and transitions quicker, easier, and less confusing
for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.
\78\ Whirlpool explained that labels printed and shipped with
every unit involve ``tremendous cost'' and are an enormous waste of
resources, including the paper for labels, the adhesive backing,
printer ink, and other supplies (e.g., zip ties, eyelets, and/or
string). For example, one manufacturing location wasted about 43,000
pounds of wax paper every single year from the backing used for the
label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, AHAM argued a move to electronic labels would provide
consumers ready access to the label content (through, for example,
links, QR codes, or apps) in a form and manner that best suits them. In
addition, such an approach would give retailers flexibility to present
the label content either by printing the label or through an electronic
device (e.g., phone, tablet). According to AHAM, an electronic format
would also allow manufacturers to easily update labels and make
corrections to online content when, for example, the FTC updates
comparability ranges. AHAM also urged the FTC to work with Canadian
regulators to, for example, align data elements, reporting, and content
of labels. It noted that because manufacturers often display the U.S.
and Canadian labels back-to-back or side-by-side on the same piece of
paper, environmental benefits, burden reduction, and cost savings will
be largely lost if only one country shifts to electronic labeling.
Alternatively, should the Commission decline to adopt electronic
labeling, AHAM and Whirlpool suggested the Rule require manufacturers
to affix labels only to those units designated by manufacturers as
showroom models. According to AHAM, manufacturers routinely ship
designated ``floor units'' to retailers with special point-of-purchase
labels and other material. While this special treatment does not cover
100% of units ultimately displayed by retailers, this process ensures
most floor units will have the manufacturers' point-of-purchase
information, including labels, applied in the factories. Given this
practice, AHAM did not object to a Rule provision requiring physical
labels ``for the limited number of major appliance units that are
displayed on showroom floors on an as needed basis to reduce waste.''
Accordingly, AHAM stated ``it is possible, without a significant amount
of burden, to ship floor units to retailers with labels.'' Whirlpool
added that such an approach, while less preferable than a complete
transition to electronic labeling, would impose less burden than the
current requirements.
According to AHAM, manufacturers lack control over products once
they leave the factory and thus cannot address missing labels on
showroom floors whether removed intentionally or inadvertently. To
ensure labels are present on showroom models, AHAM suggested the Rule
affirmatively require retailers to place labels on any floor units that
lack a physical label (e.g., replacement floor units, units displayed
after the initial production run, or units from which labels have been
intentionally or inadvertently removed). Under such an approach,
retailers could access all labels online to print and attach them
themselves, or request manufacturers to ship (or a local manufacturer
representative deliver) printed labels.
In discussing potential retailer requirements, AHAM suggested ways
the Commission could minimize retailer burden, including providing
flexibility for label materials and attachment methods, requiring
manufacturers to ship labels in a ``showroom ready'' state for
designated floor models, allowing retailers to use existing electronic
labels accessed through DOE's website, and ensuring retailers have
adequate time to comply with any new requirements. Similarly, Whirlpool
recommended that the FTC reduce the Rule's format and attachment
requirements for retailers since certain provisions aimed at ensuring
label durability through the supply chain would not be applicable to
retailer-applied labels. In addition, Whirlpool noted retailers may
lack the resources to meet the label size, paper weight, and other
requirements of the current Rule.
Other commenters cautioned against loosening the label attachment
requirements. Citing past concerns about the absence of labels in
showrooms, Earthjustice warned lack of regulatory specificity could
lead to non-compliance. In 2015, the FTC added specificity to its
regulations governing adhesives and hang tags to address missing
labels.\79\ Earthjustice argued reducing such specificity now ``would
encourage a return to labelling practices that deprive consumers of
access to the important information that EnergyGuide labels provide.''
Earthjustice also noted detailed, ``highly standardized'' format and
content requirements help ensure EnergyGuide labels can be readily
distinguished ``from a variety of other text and images that may be
present on display models or product packaging.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See 80 FR 67285, 67291-92 (Nov. 2, 2015), codified at 16
CFR 305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Televisions: CTA, an association which represents television
manufacturers, recommended the Commission allow electronic labeling for
covered products incorporating electronic displays. Similar to AHAM,
CTA argued a physical label requirement is no longer necessary because
energy cost information is widely available online and frequently used
by consumers. Therefore, CTA urged the Commission to allow sellers to
display information electronically. According to CTA, this ``may
involve the presentation of the EnergyGuide disclosure on the product's
display or screen retrievable on command.'' According to CTA, such
electronic labels would allow consumers to both view the label at the
time of purchase,
[[Page 7580]]
and ``retrieve a TV model's energy use information long after a product
is sold.'' For businesses, the electronic label would support the
industry's sustainability efforts by reducing ``printed and physical
materials.'' In addition, citing recent FCC electronic labeling
measures as well as e-labeling in Canada and Australia, CTA noted such
an approach would also be consistent with U.S. and global approaches to
electronic labeling, or e-labeling, in other contexts.
C. Comments on Labeling for Heating and Cooling Equipment
Commenters also addressed labeling for central air conditioners,
heat pumps, and furnaces, products which consumers generally do not
purchase directly in showrooms or online but instead buy through their
contractors. AHRI, which represents manufacturers of these products,
recommended continuing the requirement that labels be attached to
products that are still occasionally displayed at a retail store, such
as some water heaters. However, AHRI contended labels affixed to
products that consumers generally buy through contractors, such as
central air conditioners and furnaces, do not help consumers. In fact,
it explained these products are generally not available from retail
stores.\80\ Further, consumers often buy replacement systems in
emergency situations and usually purchase whatever the contractor has
available, e.g., when a water heater catastrophically fails. In each of
these scenarios, the consumer does not view either the product or the
label.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ AHRI cited to discussions in earlier rulemakings where the
FTC acknowledged the label has little benefit for the present
purchase but likely provides benefit for subsequent purchases. See
72 FR 6836 (Feb. 13, 2007).
\81\ With respect to split system central air conditioners, AHRI
also questioned the label's utility even if the consumer were to see
it prior to purchase. The label currently displays the efficiency
rating for the least efficient outdoor unit-indoor unit combination.
According to AHRI, however, the actual installed system may operate
at a higher efficiency than the displayed rating. In contrast,
contractors and the AHRI Directory can provide more accurate
information accounting for a ``matched system rather than the lowest
possible efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, AHRI recommended replacing the physical label with an
electronic one. According to AHRI, a QR code link to an online label
would reduce compliance costs for manufacturers while still providing
key information to those consumers and retailers who want it.
Specifically, AHRI recommended requiring smaller QR labels on central
air conditioners and furnaces which link to the full EnergyGuide label
on a publicly accessible website, such as the AHRI directory. For
central air conditioners and heat pumps where appropriate, this smaller
label should include regional identification information to easily
communicate the DOE regional standards applicable to these products--
thus helping contractors and consumers comply with the law.\82\
Further, AHRI argued because efforts to comply with the new DOE
requirements will result in an extended transition to new labels and
potential market confusion, an electronic label, which manufacturers
can readily update, would ease the shift to new metrics while reducing
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ See also Daiken's and The Marley Company's comments. In
addition to this electronic labeling approach, AHRI suggested the
Commission allow a paper label option on the units themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rheem, however, expressed a different view. Although Rheem
acknowledged the utility of QR codes in helping consumers find current
information, it did not support a transition to a QR code or fully
electronic label. At the same time, Rheem argued the EnergyGuide label
does not need to be attached to the unit itself, noting consumers may
not want a visible label if the unit is installed in a living space.
Finally, Rheem argued the Rule should not require a showroom label for
water heaters, boilers, and pool heaters because only a small portion
of the models available on the market are displayed in a showroom.\83\
Instead, in its view, online sources of information, and consultation
with professional installers offer the best ways to help consumers make
informed decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ For further discussion of boiler labeling, see Section V of
this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two water heater industry commenters favored keeping the existing
labels. AHRI asserted most manufacturers find value in a physical label
and are opposed to transitioning solely to an electronic label.
Similarly, BWC, a water heater and boiler manufacturer, opposed any
changes to existing labeling requirements for its products. It observed
the current labels clearly communicate annual energy cost and use
savings information to consumers. It warned any revisions to the
EnergyGuide label ``would require a significant undertaking.'' In
addition, BWC stated QR codes would be ``largely unnecessary'' because
the label information is currently available through other sources,
such as AHRI's Directory.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ BWC also sought clarity regarding the term ``showroom
ready'' as used in the ANPR. The Commission clarifies the reference
was simply a shorthand to describe current Rule provisions requiring
manufacturers to affix a label on every unit in a location that
would be visible to consumers examining the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Changes to Label Placement Requirements
To ensure labels are available on showroom appliances and to
decrease unnecessary labeling burdens, the Commission proposes several
label placement amendments for products frequently displayed in
showrooms such as refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers. As
discussed below, the Commission does not propose changes to television
label placement but seeks comment on whether the proposed requirements
for showroom appliances should apply to televisions. Finally, the
Commission does not propose any changes for label placement for heating
and cooling products but seeks comment on whether the Rule should allow
manufacturers to include the label with the product shipment instead of
affixing it to the unit itself.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ In addition, the Commission does not propose changing the
efficiency information for central air conditioners. While the label
does not (and cannot) predict the efficiency of the specific
installed system, it provides consumers with a general estimate of
the installed unit's efficiency rating that can be used for
comparative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed Sec. 305.13, manufacturers of refrigerators/
freezers, clothes washers, and dishwashers must ship all units with a
physical label.\86\ However, the proposed requirements for affixing
adhesive labels and hang tags to the product itself would only apply to
units designated by the manufacturer for showroom display. For all
other units, the Rule would require manufacturers to include a paper
label with the unit in some fashion (e.g., in the literature bag or
another location consumers and retailers can easily see when opening
the product's packaging). Additionally, the proposal requires retailers
to ensure any refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer unit
they choose to display in a showroom has a label in a location visible
to a consumer examining the product. Retailers are in the best position
to ensure labels continue to be displayed on their showroom floors. The
proposed Rule, however, does not impose any prescriptive label
placement or attachment requirements for retailers both because the
labels do not need to survive transportation and retailers, under the
proposal, would have the obligation to replace any missing labels. In
addition, to effectuate the proposed retailer requirements, the
proposed Rule requires manufacturers to furnish labels for these
appliances to retailers upon request to ease retailer burdens. Given
this new responsibility, the proposal
[[Page 7581]]
provides a year for retailers to comply. The Commission seeks comments
on all aspects of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ These changes would also apply to dryers and miscellaneous
refrigerators if they are labeled following this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For consumers, the proposed Sec. 305.13 helps ensure every
appliance displayed in a showroom has an EnergyGuide label, including
by requiring retailers to replace labels. However, the proposal does so
without imposing unnecessary costs on manufacturers. Specifically,
manufacturers would no longer have to affix adhesive or hang tag labels
on millions of units that consumers will never see until after the unit
is purchased. Instead, with the exception of a small number of
showroom-designated units (a tiny fraction of units produced),
manufacturers will simply include a paper label with the shipped
product. This streamlining should greatly reduce the time involved in
affixing individual labels and resources used in the form of adhesive
materials, special paper, hang tag material, and other similar supplies
without interfering with consumers' access to the label.
The proposal, however, does not allow sellers to substitute a
virtual or electronic label (e.g., a QR code) for the physical
label.\87\ Abandoning physical labels would likely degrade the label's
effectiveness and reduce the program's benefits for consumers.
Specifically, physical labels disclose all the required information for
shoppers on showroom floors. QR codes, in contrast, allow only a self-
selected portion of shoppers (i.e., those that have mobile internet
access and take the extra effort to retrieve the information online)
access to the label. Although industry commenters suggest some
consumers ignore in-store labels, eliminating them would deprive other
consumers of valuable information they rely upon.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Labels are already widely available through retail and
manufacturer websites as well as DOE's website as required by the
Rule.
\88\ Earthjustice argued that replacing physical labels with QR
codes would be inconsistent with EPCA. We do not see the need to
address that issue at this time. However, to the extent
manufacturers want to communicate additional information to
consumers, they may do so by providing other point-of-sale material,
including QR codes, separate from the physical label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission does not propose allowing television
labels to appear on screen in lieu of physical labels. As the
Commission explained in an earlier proceeding, the method for
implementing an effective electronic label is unclear.\89\ Such a
provision would require retailers to display an EnergyGuide label at
all times, and the Commission has no evidence regarding the feasibility
of doing so. Specifically, if retailers do not continuously power up
all their showroom units, the image might appear only periodically.
Further, retail staff or consumers may turn off the product's label-
displaying mode to provide shoppers with an unobstructed image. Such
intermittent display of the label would make it less likely the
required information was available to consumers examining products in
stores and therefore could significantly reduce the labels' ability to
assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. However, given the lack
of record evidence, the Commission seeks comment on this issue,
including whether the Commission should follow the same approach for
televisions it has proposed here for labeling appliances (i.e.,
requiring manufacturers to place labels only on showroom-designated
models and creating a new requirement for retailers to ensure labels on
any model they choose to display).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 76 FR 1038, 1044-45 (Jan. 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters, the Commission
seeks comment on whether the Rule should allow manufacturers to simply
ship a paper label with the product. The Commission recognizes these
products generally do not appear in showrooms. Thus, consumers are
unlikely to see labels affixed to those products prior to purchase. The
Commission does not, however, propose this change in this NPRM because,
as the Commission has observed in the past, labels attached to these
types of units can help consumers in future purchases.\90\ Commenters
should address whether this reasoning remains valid. For central air
conditioners, commenters should also address whether labels shipped
with the product (but not affixed to it) will adequately inform
installers about DOE regional standards requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ 72 FR 49948, 49956 (Aug. 29, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, commenters should address whether the Commission should
follow the same approach for televisions it has proposed here for
labeling appliances (i.e., requiring manufacturers to place labels only
on showroom-designated models and creating a new requirement for
retailers to ensure labels on any model they choose to display).
VII. Proposals for New Label Content
Background and Comments: Several commenters recommended the
Commission consider ways to provide consumers with climate-related
information and other environmental impact data such as full fuel cycle
data. For example, NYSERDA recommended including greenhouse gas
emissions (``GHG'') information on the labels to help consumers
understand the broader environmental impact of their purchases. To
convey variability in emissions related to electricity use across the
country, NYSERDA suggested displaying a range of emissions based on the
average grid intensities collected by the EPA and the U.S. Energy
Information Agency (``EIA'').\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ In addition, an anonymous commenter (#0013), citing
research about the use of ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons
(``HCFCs'') in some refrigeration products, suggested that any
refrigeration products containing HCFCs should contain labels
informing consumers of such, or at least how to appropriately
dispose of these items. The Commission does not propose to include
this information on the label as it pertains to issues related to
the end of the product's life and would likely crowd the information
already there, thus potentially reducing the label's effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Propane Gas Association (``NPGA''), the American Gas
Association (``AGA''), and the American Public Gas Association
(``APGA'') (collectively ``the Group'') recommended adopting a Full
Fuel Cycle (``FFC'') energy label for household appliances. This
label's disclosure would include estimates of the energy used in
transportation, distribution, generation, production, and extraction.
The Group argued such a label would be consistent with the agency's
mission to providing consumers complete and accurate information under
the law. They further argued including such information would promote
fuel neutrality and advance policy priorities by helping to tackle
climate change. Finally, the commenters contended this labeling is now
feasible because the FFC test procedures necessary to adopt this new
label are straightforward and already available to the FTC from
DOE.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ The Group also argued the FTC has legal authority to adopt
FFC labels, noting that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)(A), the
contents of the label are at the discretion of the FTC so long as it
accords with test procedures set forth by DOE under 42 U.S.C.
6293.26. Furthermore, EPCA expressly grants the FTC the ability to
disclose additional information about energy consumption on labels
if such information would assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Group further recommended streamlining the existing label to
consist of the headlines ``RESIDENTIAL ENERGY COST & EMISSIONS'' and
``ENERGYGUIDE'' above a QR code, which would link consumers to the
energy efficiency and associated FFC cost of products where data is
available.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose amending the label to
convert it into a QR code linking consumers to FFC information as
suggested by some commenters. As discussed elsewhere in this Notice,
replacing the current label with a QR code is likely to decrease the
label's utility for consumers (see Sections V.F and VI supra).
[[Page 7582]]
In addition, the Commission does not propose amending existing
labels to add FFC or GHG emissions information about individual
products.\93\ It is not clear, for instance, whether such additional
technical information is helpful or whether the information already on
the label (e.g., the annual fuel costs), provides an adequate proxy for
relative comparisons of the FFC impacts of competing products.
Additionally, as the electricity grid evolves toward renewables and
away from sources such as coal, the difference in emissions between
fuels may narrow; thus diluting the relevance of such fuel comparisons.
Further, additional FFC or GHG emissions information would clutter the
label, potentially confusing consumers, and otherwise detract from the
central disclosures related to the energy cost or energy efficiency of
the labeled product. Accordingly, weighing the uncertain benefits of
such a disclosure against the likely reduction in the label's utility,
the Commission declines to propose these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Under EPCA, the Commission may include on the label
additional information relating to energy consumption if it would
assist consumers in purchasing decisions or product use, and would
not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an alternative, the Commission could explore, with DOE, creating
online consumer resources to provide FFC and/or GHG information for
individual covered products, even if such information is not included
on the EnergyGuide labels. However, before committing resources to such
a combined agency effort, the Commission invites comment on such an
approach.
VIII. Additional Issues
Commenters also raised proposals and questions about a range of
additional issues including lamp reporting, potential lamp and ceiling
fan labels, transitional label language, range updates, compliance
dates for ranges, television data updates, a categorical ranking
system, bilingual information, coordination with other agencies,
prescriptive requirements, and online label requirements. The following
section summarizes these comments and provides the Commission's
analysis.
A. Lamp Reporting
Background and Comments: The Commission sought comment in the ANPR
on whether the Rule should require lamp manufacturers to include
information regarding their Lighting Facts labels with their DOE data
reports. 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.\94\ The
Commission did not extend this requirement to the Lighting Facts labels
in 2016 given appropriation restrictions placed on DOE spending related
to light bulbs at that time. Instead, the Commission stated it would
revisit the issue at ``a later date should circumstances warrant.''
\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 81 FR 63634 (Sept. 15, 2016); 16 CFR 305.11 (FTC reporting
requirements).
\95\ 81 FR at 63636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, NEMA urged the Commission to refrain from requiring
links to Lighting Facts labels in reports submitted via the DOE data
website (CCMS) because current realities of the consumer marketplace do
not warrant it. According to NEMA, the ``logistical coordination of the
digital location of online content over time is very complicated for
lamp products.'' In addition, because the label already contains the
product characteristics, additional DOE reporting would only provide
duplicative information. NEMA also argued the proposal would increase
the burden on the FTC to review this data, much of which has little
relevance to consumers.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose requiring lamp
manufacturers to include information regarding their Lighting Facts
labels with their data reports. Commenters did not identify any
specific need or benefit from requiring this information in DOE
reports. The Commission can revisit this issue if developments suggest
a need.
B. Transitional Label Language
Background: The Commission sought comment on whether to phase out
language on refrigerator and clothes washer labels added in 2013 to
help distinguish models tested with the current DOE procedure from
those rated with an older version.\96\ This language, which advises
consumers to ``Compare ONLY to other labels with yellow numbers,''
appears to now be obsolete and crowds the label with irrelevant
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Commenters supported an eventual shift to the original
label but recommended the Commission wait to do so until DOE completes
certain changes to its requirements for the affected products.
Specifically, AHAM suggested delaying revisions to the ``transitional''
labels until a new DOE test procedure provides an appropriate time to
allow a return to the ``normal'' label in a single step. In its view,
removing the current transitional language before such a test change
could confuse consumers, burden manufacturers, and create complications
should any new test procedures warrant similar transitional language.
Whirlpool agreed, stating it was unaware of any consumer complaints
or confusion about the current label. It added upcoming changes to the
DOE clothes washer test procedure are likely to be significant and thus
may provide a logical time to transition to the conventional label.
However, since the expected changes to the refrigerator/freezer test
procedures are not as complex, Whirlpool recommended any such
transition coincide with the amended energy conservation standards to
minimize additional manufacturer burden. Finally, Electrolux generally
supported reverting to the original format if manufacturer burdens are
minimized in doing so.
Discussion: To minimize confusion resulting from a label change,
the Commission does not propose amending the ``transitional'' label
language for refrigerators and clothes washers at this time. However,
it will consider doing so when future DOE test procedures or standards
amendments provide an appropriate time to revert to the original label
language.
C. Range Updates
Range and Cost Updates: A few commenters recommended the Commission
update range and cost information more frequently. For example, NYSERDA
urged the FTC to update the cost as often as feasible to increase
accuracy. It also argued labels conveying estimated yearly energy costs
calculated with a national average price from a fixed point in time are
unlikely to accurately reflect regional consumer experience. It
explained New York consumers, for example, living in a higher cost
energy market, would find such labels less accurate than consumers in
other parts of the country. In addition, Earthjustice stated the FTC
should not permit outdated range information to persist on labels.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing the frequency
of range and cost updates to labels. Although updates provide consumers
with a useful estimate of a product's annual energy costs, ranges
continue to provide a useful ``apples-to-apples'' comparison across
products even as rates change. Moreover, range changes come with a
downside. Specifically, they can lead to consumer confusion because
they often result in showrooms displaying similar
[[Page 7583]]
models with the updated labels on newer units and outdated labels on
the older ones. Increasing the frequency of updates only exacerbates
this confusion. The Rule's current approach (the five-year update
schedule first established in 2007) \97\ strikes a reasonable balance
between providing consumers updated information and minimizing the
problems associated with frequent changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 72 FR 49948, 49959 (Aug. 29, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likewise, the Commission does not propose changing the national
cost estimates on the label to provide more granular information. The
label's annual cost disclosure provides an estimate to allow consumers
to compare the energy consumption of competing products quickly and
effectively. Adding information degrades the use and utility of the
label by making it harder to use and understand. The label already
addresses this issue by stating it only provides an estimate.
D. Compliance Dates for Ranges
Background and Comments: Commenters also discussed the compliance
period for future label updates. The current Rule requires
manufacturers to implement range and cost changes within 90 days after
issuance of updates (see Sec. 305.12).\98\ Whirlpool recommended
expanding this period to 180 days for minor updates, such as range
changes, because the manufacturing process for updating EnergyGuide
labels generally takes four months. Specifically, according to
Whirlpool, such updates involve hundreds of different part numbers in
production at multiple locations, and therefore, draw resources away
from other regulatory compliance efforts (e.g., retesting and
recertification to a new DOE or ENERGY STAR requirement). In its view,
an extension to 180 days provides the necessary time to ``appropriately
transition labels, without pulling away resources from other critical
energy compliance projects'' with no harm to consumers. Finally, for
any mandatory label changes, BWC asked the FTC to ``be sensitive to the
timing of ongoing DOE rulemakings to minimize burdens on
manufacturers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ EPCA sets this period for implementing range and cost
changes to 60 days, unless the Commission provides for a later date.
42 U.S.C. 6296(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: In response to comments, the Commission proposes
extending the transition period for label range and cost updates under
Sec. 305.12 to 180 days. As Whirlpool explained, manufacturer and
supply chain issues have become increasingly complex. For routine label
updates implemented every five years, the additional transition time is
short relative to this schedule and should have little impact on
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including
whether and how it would affect consumers.
E. Updating the Television Test Data Requirements
The Commission also proposes a minor, conforming update to the
television reporting requirements to match the recent DOE test
procedure for those products.\99\ Specifically, the proposed Rule would
amend Sec. 305.11(a)(3) to require reporting the following data for
televisions: brand name, model number, screen size, on-mode power
consumption, standby mode power consumption, dynamic luminance, and
annual energy consumption. This proposal would ensure manufacturers
submit data that matches the metrics yielded by the new test procedure
rather than obsolete data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 88 FR 16082 (Mar. 5, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Light Bulb and Ceiling Fan Labels
Background and Discussion: In the ANPR, the Commission sought
comment on updating the electricity cost disclosure on the Lighting
Facts and ceiling fan labels to reflect recent DOE national estimates.
Commenters provided differing views on such changes. Earthjustice, for
example, generally recommended updates for these products to avoid
misleading consumers with outdated information. In contrast, NEMA, an
association representing lighting manufacturers, recommended against
changing the electricity cost information underlying the Lighting Facts
because of the potential confusion resulting from a change. In
addition, NEMA noted that because of the nature of the sales process
and supply chain for lighting products, it would be ``impossible to
assure all comparable product packaging reflects an updated electricity
cost disclosure.'' Thus, in NEMA's view, such a change would create
misleading inconsistencies among competing products as the label
transition occurs.
The American Lighting Association (``ALA'') also opposed a change,
for lighting as well as ceiling fans, noting it would create
significant burdens for manufacturers. If the FTC chooses to update the
light bulb labels, ALA urged allowing a rolling change over 36-months,
which would be consistent with other Federal agencies and would give
manufacturers the lead time necessary to make package changes.
Similarly, Madison IAQ did not recommend the Commission change the
ceiling fan labels. Should the Commission make changes, BAF, without
explanation, recommended ``replacing the weighted average airflow and
power numbers with airflow at high speed and power at high speed.'' In
addition, Madison IAQ recommended renaming Airflow Efficiency to
Average Airflow Efficiency since it is an average value.
Discussion: As discussed below, the Commission does not propose
changes to lighting labels at this time. On balance, the problems
associated with changing the vast array of light bulb packages on the
market, including potential consumer confusion during the transition
and the burdens of such a change, likely outweigh the benefits
associated with updated cost numbers. The Lighting Facts label
primarily benefits consumers by helping them compare the relative
energy costs of similar models, not by providing their actual energy
costs. The current label will continue to provide this benefit without
changes. In addition, given the relatively low energy cost of most
light bulbs and small energy cost difference, the benefits to
individual consumers from updating the cost figure are likely to be
lower than with other products. However, the Commission will continue
to monitor changes in average electricity costs and will consider
whether to provide future updates to these labels. Should the
Commission require a new cost figure, it will consider providing
manufacturers an adequate compliance period given the burdens involved
with changing the large number of different lighting packages.
The Commission, however, proposes to require updating the energy
cost information, as well as the range information, for ceiling fans by
including them in the regular five-year schedule for label costs and
range updates in Sec. 305.12. Unlike the Lighting Facts label, ceiling
fan labels contain a range of comparability, thus making regular
updates to the label information likely more useful to consumers.
Further, there are generally fewer ceiling fan products on the market
compared to lamps, making the burden for label changes likely lower.
Although ceiling fan labels feature energy cost and comparability range
information as required by EPCA, the Rule currently does not specify an
update schedule for that information. Accordingly, the proposal would
include ceiling fans in the Rule's routine 5-year update schedule for
the range and cost information to ensure regular range updates for
those products. Consistent with other products bearing labels on
packages, the Commission will seek to
[[Page 7584]]
set compliance dates for the next scheduled update in 2027 to minimize
disruption to manufacturers' normal production schedules. Finally, the
Commission does not propose changing the content of the label because
commenters have not provided evidence of the need for such changes.
G. Categorical Ranking System
NYSERDA suggested the Commission consider categorical rankings on
the label (for example ``good,'' ``better,'' ``best'') to bring ``a
more holistic energy efficiency perspective, especially for product
categories that do not already have an ENERGY STAR marking.'' In 2007,
the Commission considered such a rating system after conducting
consumer research. That research demonstrated the operating cost design
performs well on objective tasks (e.g., ranking by energy use), and the
research participants identified the design as the most useful method
for communicating energy information. Thus, the Commission rejected a
categorical disclosure.\100\ The record provides no compelling reason
to revisit this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Bilingual Information
Background: Under the current Rule, manufacturers may provide
bilingual information in the form of an additional label or in separate
point-of-purchase materials. However, the Rule only provides guidance
on providing bilingual information, including guidance on content and
format of bilingual labels, to manufacturers of lighting products.\101\
The ANPR sought input on whether the Rule should offer similar guidance
for other products and whether other improvements are warranted to help
non-English speaking consumers with their purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 16 CFR 305.23(b)(6) and 16 CFR 305.23(c)(4) (label
information may be presented in a second language either by using
separate labels for each language or in a bilingual label with the
English text in the format required by this section immediately
followed by the text in the second language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: A few commenters offered suggestions. For example,
NYSERDA urged the FTC to provide bilingual guidance across product
categories to help manufacturers prepare information in multiple
languages to communicate with a broader set of consumers. It also
suggested that the FTC help encourage multiple language labeling
through guidance on the use of a QR code or similar mechanism to allow
consumers faced with paper labels in English to access information in
their preferred languages. In contrast, Rheem, which already prepares
Spanish and French versions of product literature, expressed concerns
that any bilingual requirements ``will become overly burdensome and
misdirected.'' It recommended the FTC leave decisions about such
literature to the manufacturer's discretion.
Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing existing Rule
provisions related to bilingual labels because it lacks evidence
specific label content amendments (e.g., a dedicated QR code) are
necessary to help manufacturers and retailers communicate information
to non-English speakers. Commenters have not provided any evidence non-
English speakers find it impractical to use the labels' key
disclosures, which are primarily numeric (e.g., annual energy cost in
dollars), to compare products. However, consistent with the comments,
the FTC staff will explore creating additional guidance to better
convey the label's information to non-English speakers. The Commission
invites commenters to address what guidance would be helpful to
consumers, manufacturers, and retailers. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on whether and how mobile translation applications may
help consumers understand labels.
I. Coordination With Other Agencies
Background and Comments: Several commenters urged the Commission to
coordinate future label changes with Canadian regulators and the FTC's
sister agencies. NEMA, for example, raised concerns that a recent
Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') proposal conflicted with the FTC's
Lighting Facts labeling requirements, and therefore, could cause
confusion in the North American marketplace.\102\ NEMA suggested
coordination between the FTC and NRCan might reduce consumer confusion
and avoid prohibitive financial burdens and the potential environmental
costs of changing packaging. AHAM and Whirlpool also urged the FTC to
harmonize activities with NRCan because ``changes to one label
impact[s] the other.'' According to Whirlpool, the need for cooperation
with Canada is paramount because the U.S. and Canadian markets often
comprise an integrated supply chain. In its view, misalignment in
labeling location, format, content, and timing can pose significant
burdens for manufacturers and cause confusion for retailers and
consumers. Given these realities, Whirlpool noted manufacturers
generally use a side-by-side U.S. and Canada energy label, or a front-
to-back configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-regulations/general-service-lamps/24407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also urged the FTC to increase its coordination with DOE
and EPA. For example, Whirlpool recommended the FTC ``make every
attempt to align the compliance dates of any EnergyGuide label
amendments'' with changes to DOE test procedures and efficiency
standards, and EPA ENERGY STAR program requirements. Specifically,
Whirlpool urged the FTC to wait to implement significant changes to the
EnergyGuide labels until the compliance dates for the amended energy
conservation and ENERGY STAR requirements.
Discussion: The Commission agrees cooperation with other Federal,
State, and international agencies is important for ensuring consistency
in labeling requirements where appropriate. The FTC staff will continue
to communicate and coordinate with DOE, NRCan, and other appropriate
agencies on issues relevant to the FTC labeling rules. The Commission
also encourages industry members and other interested parties to alert
FTC staff to any relevant developments involving such agencies.
J. Prescriptive Requirements
Background: In the ANPR, the Commission sought comments on 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.
Comments: Commenters provided several suggestions to eliminate
unnecessarily prescriptive requirements. Daiken, for example,
recommended several specific label changes. First, for trim size
dimensions under Sec. 305.20(a), it recommended the FTC specify only
minimum dimensions rather than a range of widths and lengths, and
specify whole number minimums (e.g., 7 inches for the length as opposed
to 7 \3/8\ inches). Second, it recommended allowing smaller labels for
some products. Third, it recommended eliminating provisions in Sec.
305.20(a) related to picas, centering, and depth, as well as
requirements about type style and setting in Sec. 305.20(b) because,
in its view, they do not benefit consumers. Finally, Daiken argued the
Commission should eliminate the paper stock weight and adhesive
application rates requirements in Sec. 305.20(d) because they are
unnecessarily prescriptive. Crown, a boiler manufacturer, agreed,
stating that ``label weight and material are irrelevant
[[Page 7585]]
as long as the existing durability requirements are met.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See also The Marley Company comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: The Commission proposes eliminating several
prescriptive requirements that likely serve little purpose because they
are either obsolete or already addressed by other Rule provisions.
Specifically, the proposed amendments eliminate requirements related to
picas, depth, specific paper weights, and position (see, e.g., Sec.
305.13).
These requirements provide little benefit beyond those already
provided by other provisions in the Rule. For example, under this
proposal, the Rule would continue to require a uniform appearance
(fonts, font sizes, text placement, etc.) to ensure consumers recognize
the label and are able to easily use it to make comparisons. For labels
affixed to products, the proposal continues to require the adhesion
capacity and paper stock be sufficient to prevent their dislodgment
during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution to the
retailer or consumer. These provisions should continue to ensure labels
are uniform and sufficiently durable to remain on covered products.
K. Online Label Requirements
Background and Comments: The California IOUs suggested the FTC
consider providing additional guidance for retailers regarding the
online placement of display labels, particularly regarding their
proximity to other product information. The current Rule requires
disclosures to ``appear clearly and conspicuously and in close
proximity to the covered product's price.'' \104\ California IOUs
asserted the ``close proximity'' language is ambiguous. They observed
online retailers display the EnergyGuide information in a way that
requires consumers to manually expand the supplemental section to view
the link to the label. Therefore, they recommended the FTC ``guide
online retailers to display the EnergyGuide label as the second in the
series of product images to increase its prominence.'' \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ 16 CFR 305.27.
\105\ Other commenters shared experiences indicating they may
benefit from clarifying the ``close proximity'' requirement for
online labels. One commenter (Ring) stated they rely on online
research to narrow their choices before visiting stores. Another
(DuSaint) stated he found online comparison shopping for appliances
to be generally helpful, other than in situations where appliances
require immediate replacement through a visit to a physical store.
Merriam also argued the energy labels ``should be clearly and
consistently included in product pictures for online retailers'' but
did not specify any changes to the existing online ``catalog''
requirements in the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion: In response to these comments, the Commission proposes
to amend the online label requirements to state that manufacturers
posting the label or label link online in ``close proximity'' to the
price must ensure that label or link itself is readily and immediately
visible to the consumer. Further, the Commission proposes adding
language to Sec. 305.27 clarifying that, if an online seller uses an
expandable image of the label (e.g., ``thumbnail'' photographs in a
series of product-related images) or clickable icon to comply with the
Rule, that image or icon must be visible to the consumer without any
additional scrolling, clicking, or other similar actions. These
requirements should ensure online sellers cannot hide the EnergyGuide
label in a long series of product photographs without imposing
prescriptive requirements that could stifle innovation as online sales
platforms continue to evolve.
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act
The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and
reporting requirements that constitute information collection
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').\106\
Under the PRA, an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of
information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement,
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') control number. OMB has approved the Rule's existing
information collection requirements through February 29, 2024 (OMB
Control No. 3084-0069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; see also 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments include new labeling requirements for air
cleaners, clothes dryers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, and
portable electric spas (collectively referred below as ``new labeled
products'') that constitute information collections under the PRA. The
proposed amendments also contain requirements which reduce the
manufacturers' burden associated with labeling certain appliances and
increase the burden for retailers by requiring them to ensure displayed
products bear labels. Accordingly, the Commission is seeking OMB
clearance specific to the Rule amendments.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ The PRA analysis for this rulemaking focuses strictly on
the information collection requirements created by and/or otherwise
affected by the amendments. Unaffected information collection
provisions have previously been accounted for in past FTC analyses
under the Rule and are covered by the current PRA clearance from
OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden estimates below are based on Census data, DOE figures and
estimates, public comments, the agency's general knowledge of
manufacturing practices, and trade association advice and figures. FTC
staff estimates that there are 100 manufacturers producing 5,000 basic
models (i.e., units with essentially identical physical and electrical
characteristics) of the proposed new products (air cleaners--700;
clothes dryers--1,700; miscellaneous refrigeration products--1,100;
portable electric spas--1,500).
Reporting: The Rule requires manufacturers of covered products to
annually submit a report for each current model containing the same
information that must be submitted to the DOE pursuant to 10 CFR part
429. In lieu of submitting the required information to the Commission,
manufacturers may submit such information to DOE directly via the
agency's Compliance Certification Management System, available at
https://regulations.doe.gov/ccms, as provided by 10 CFR 429.12. Because
manufacturers are already required to submit these reports to DOE, FTC
staff estimates any additional burden associated with providing the
information to the FTC is minimal. FTC staff estimates the average
reporting burden for manufacturers of the proposed new products will be
approximately 15 hours per manufacturer. Based on this estimate, the
annual reporting burden for manufacturers of new labeled products is
1,500 hours (15 hours x 100 manufacturers). Staff estimates that
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\108\ will
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor
cost of $28,455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ These labor cost estimates are derived from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (``BLS'') figures in ``Table 1. National employment
and wage data from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics
survey by occupation, May 2022,'' available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturer Labeling: The amendments require that manufacturers
create labels for the four new labeled product categories. Since EPCA
and the Rule specify the content and format for the required labels,
and FTC staff provide online label templates, manufacturers need only
input the energy consumption figures and other product-specific
information derived from testing. FTC staff estimates the time to
incorporate the required information into labels and label-covered
products is five hours per basic model. Accordingly, staff estimates
the approximate annual burden involved in creating labels for covered
products is
[[Page 7586]]
25,000 hours [5,000 basic models x 5 hours]. Staff estimates that
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\109\ will
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor
cost of $474,250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed Rule would also require manufacturers to affix labels
to shipped clothes dryers, miscellaneous refrigeration products
(``MREFs''), and portable electric spas (estimates include MREFs at
3,000,000; dryers at 8,000,000).\110\ For dryers and MREFs (11,000,000
units), the burden would only apply to units designated as showroom
models, which FTC estimates will account for about 0.2% of shipped
models. Consistent with past estimates, the FTC estimates it takes 4
seconds for a manufacturer to affix a label for showroom display.
Accordingly, staff estimates the burden for affixing labels on these
new products will be 24 hours (22,000 units x 4 seconds). Staff
estimates that information processing staff, at an hourly rate of
$18.97, will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated
annual labor cost of $455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ As discussed in this Notice, the Commission has not
proposed a specific labeling method for portable electric spas and
is seeking comment on that issue. The estimate here assumes spa
labels will appear on packaging and thus will not create the type of
incremental burden posed by labels affixed separately to the product
(e.g., labels for appliances such as refrigerators). Staff estimates
annual shipments of these products are about 500,000. Should
labeling for these products be finalized and impose a different
burden, estimates will be updated depending on the final labeling
method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the proposal would relax label attachment requirements
for refrigerators and freezers, dishwashers, and clothes washers by
allowing manufacturers to ship an unaffixed label with most units
(about 24 million units). The FTC estimates the reduction in burden
from this proposed change to be 26,667 hours (24,000,000 x 4 seconds).
Thus, the estimated burden on manufacturers from the proposed
amendments would be a net reduction of 143 hours ([1,500 (reporting) +
25,000 (labeling) + 24 (affixing labels)] - 26,667]).
Retailer Showroom Labeling: The proposed Rule would require
retailers to ensure that refrigerator products, dishwashers, clothes
washers, and clothes dryers displayed in showrooms bear a label. FTC
staff estimates there are about 14,000 showroom appliance stores in the
U.S. and that stores on average display about 50 labeled products per
year. Out of these, the FTC estimates 20% of those showroom models will
require retailers to locate the label in the box and affix it to a
product, which will take about five minutes per display model. Most
showroom units will already be labeled by manufacturers and thus
require no action by the retailer. Accordingly, the estimated total
burden is 11,667 hours (50 units x .20 x 14,000 x 5 minutes). Staff
estimates that retail sales staff, at an hourly rate of $15.62,\111\
will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual
labor cost of $182,239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Testing: Manufacturers of the new labeled products must test each
basic model they produce to determine energy usage, but the majority of
tests conducted are required by DOE rules. As a result, it is likely
only a small portion of the tests conducted are attributable to the
Rule's requirements. In addition, manufacturers need not subject each
basic model to testing annually; they must retest only if the product
design changes in such a way as to affect energy consumption. FTC staff
estimates that 25% of all basic models are tested annually because of
the Rule's requirements. Accordingly, the estimated annual testing
burden for new labeled products is 15,400 hours.\112\ Staff estimates
that engineering technicians, at an hourly rate of $30.95, will
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor
cost of $476,630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ The FTC has applied different test hour burdens depending
on the product: air cleaners--700 basic models x 0.25 x 40 hours =
7,000 hours; clothes dryers--1,700 basic models x 0.25 x 4 hours =
1,700 hours; portable electric spas--1500 basic models x 0.25 x 12
hours = 4,500 hours; MREFs--1,100 basic models x 0.25 x 8 hours =
2,200 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Label Posting: The proposal would require manufacturers to
post images of their EnergyGuide labels online for the new labeled
products. Staff estimates the burden associated with this requirement
based on the number of models of covered products. Given approximately
5,000 total models at an estimated five minutes per model, staff
estimates that this requirement entails a burden of 417 hours (5,000
basic models x 5 minutes). Staff estimates that information processing
staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\113\ will typically perform the
required tasks, for an estimated annual labor cost of $7,910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recordkeeping: The Rule also requires manufacturers of covered
products to retain records of test data generated in performing the
tests to derive information included on labels.\114\ The FTC estimates
the annual recordkeeping burden for manufacturers of new labeled
products will be approximately one minute per basic model to store
relevant data. Accordingly, the estimated annual recordkeeping burden
would be approximately 83 hours (5,000 basic models x one minute).
Staff estimates that information processing staff, at an hourly rate of
$18.97, will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated
annual labor cost of $1,575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See 16 CFR 305.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online and Retail Catalog Disclosures: Staff estimates there are
approximately 400 sellers of new labeled product categories who are
subject to the Rule's catalog disclosure requirements. Staff has
previously estimated covered online and catalog sellers spend
approximately 17 hours per year to incorporate relevant product data
for products that are currently covered by the Rule. Staff estimates
the requirements for new labeled product categories will add an
additional 4 hours per year in incremental burden per seller. Staff
estimates these additions will result in an incremental burden of 1,600
hours (400 sellers x 4 hours annually). Staff estimates that
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\115\ will
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated incremental
annual labor cost of $30,352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated annual non-labor cost burden: Staff anticipates that
manufacturers are not likely to require any significant capital costs
to comply with the amendments.
X. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \116\ requires that the
Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of
the proposed amendment on small entities. The RFA requires that the
Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(``IRFA'') with a proposed rule, and a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (``FRFA'') with a final rule, if any, unless the Commission
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.\117\ While the Commission
recognizes that some of the affected manufacturers and retailers may
qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds as determined
by the Small Business Administration, it does not anticipate a
substantial number of these small entities will face a significant
burden under the proposed
[[Page 7587]]
rule. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission
certifies that amending the Rules as proposed will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\117\ 5 U.S.C. 605. The proposed conforming changes to central
air conditioner descriptors will have no impact on the Rule's
current burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission estimates the amendments will apply to 400 online
and paper catalog sellers of covered products, about 100 product
manufacturers, and approximately 14,000 retail appliance stores. The
Commission expects that approximately 5,150 of these various entities
qualify as small businesses (5,000 of which are appliance stores). More
details about these small entities can be found under section C below.
Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business
Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests
comment on whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities, including specific information
on the number of entities that would be covered by the proposed rule,
the number of these companies that are small entities, and the average
annual burden for each entity. Although the Commission concludes under
the RFA that the proposed amendments to the Rule in this notice would
not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on the affected small
entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is
appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact of
the proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has
prepared the following analysis:
A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken
As explained in more detail above, the Commission is proposing
expanded product coverage and additional improvements to the Rule to
help consumers in their purchasing decisions of consumer products.
B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Rule
The objective of the proposed Rule is to improve the effectiveness
of the current labeling program by providing energy information for
additional product categories and improving existing labels. The legal
basis for the Rule is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6292 et seq.).
C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small
Business Administration, appliance manufacturers qualify as small
businesses if they have fewer than 1,500 employees. Catalog sellers
qualify as small businesses (miscellaneous retailers) if their sales
are less than $11.5 million annually. Retail appliances firms qualify
if their annual receipts are $40 million or less. The Commission
estimates that there are approximately 150 online sellers and 5,000
appliance retailers that are both subject to the proposed Rule's
requirements and qualify as small businesses.\118\ The Commission seeks
comment and information regarding the estimated number and nature of
small business entities for which the proposed Rule would have a
significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 81 FR 62681 (Sept. 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements
The changes under consideration would increase reporting or
recordkeeping requirements associated with the new labeled products
proposed in this Notice (i.e., air cleaners, clothes dryers,
miscellaneous refrigerator products, and portable electric spas). The
amendments also contain compliance requirements for appliance retailers
to ensure that units placed on showroom floors have labels. More
details on these reporting, disclosure and recordkeeping requirements
can be found under (IX) Paperwork Reduction Act.
E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
The Commission has not identified any other Federal statutes,
rules, or policies that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed Rule. During this proceeding, FTC staff has consulted with DOE
staff and other agencies on the issues addressed in this Notice. The
Commission invites comment and information on this issue.
F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule
The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any,
for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on small
entities. The Commission has already taken steps to reduce the economic
impact of the Rule in this NPRM. The Commission considered but did not
adopt a proposal to impose an additional requirement for manufacturers
to include IMEF information on labels for clothes washers. The
Commission also solicited comments on alternatives to the current
``showroom-ready'' approach for affixing labels. Further, in proposing
new requirements, the Commission considered ways to minimize retailer
burden, including providing flexibility for label materials and
attachment methods, requiring manufacturers to ship labels in a
``showroom ready'' state for designated floor models, allowing
retailers to use existing electronic labels accessed through DOE's
website, and ensuring retailers have adequate time to comply with any
new requirements. The Commission considered electronic labeling. The
Commission is also seeking comment on how with DOE, the agencies might
create online consumer resources to provide FFC and/or GHG information
for individual covered products, in lieu of requiring such information
on the EnergyGuide labels. The Commission is currently unaware of the
need to adopt any special provisions for small entities. However, if
such issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative
approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for
online and retail sellers to allow them additional time to comply
beyond the labeling deadline set for manufacturers. If the comments
filed in response to this Notice identify small entities that are
affected by the proposed Rule, as well as alternative methods of
compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on such
entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such
alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the
final Rule.
XI. Request for Comment
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider
your comment, we must receive it on or before April 2, 2024. Write
``Energy Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305) (Matter No. R611004)'' on your
comment. Because of 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://
[[Page 7588]]
www.regulations.gov website. As a matter of discretion, the Commission
tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments
before placing them on https://www.regulations.gov.
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Energy Labeling Rule (16
CFR part 305) (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, Mail
Stop H-144 (Annex L), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your
paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
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 4.10(a)(2),
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including 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 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 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
4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release
describing it, and visit https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2024-0008 to read a plain-language summary of the proposed rule. 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 April 2, 2024. 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.
Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of
all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an opportunity
for presentation of oral comments regarding these proposed amendments.
Interested parties may request an opportunity to present oral data,
views, and comments on the proposed amendments. If such a request is
made, the Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register
stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing
the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to
present oral views must submit a request, on or before March 18, 2024,
in the form of a written comment that describes the issues on which the
party wishes to speak. If no oral presentations are scheduled, the
Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record.
XII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their
Advisors
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be
placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes to amend 16
CFR part 305 as follows:
PART 305--ENERGY AND WATER USE LABELING FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS UNDER
THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (``ENERGY LABELING RULE'')
0
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.
0
2. Amend Sec. 305.2 by redesignating paragraph (l)(24) as paragraph
(l)(27), adding new paragraphs (l)(24), (l)(25), and (l)(26), and
revising paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(24) Room air cleaners.
(25) Miscellaneous refrigeration products.
(26) Portable electric spas.
* * * * *
(p) Energy efficiency rating means the following product-specific
energy usage descriptors: Annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) for
furnaces; combined energy efficiency ratio (CEER) for room and portable
air conditioners; seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) for the
cooling function of central air conditioners and heat pumps; heating
seasonal performance factor 2 (HSPF2) for the heating function of heat
pumps; airflow efficiency for ceiling fans; combined energy factor
(CEF) for clothes dryers; Integrated Energy Factor (``IEF'') for air
cleaners; and, thermal efficiency (TE) for pool heaters, as these
descriptors are determined in accordance with tests prescribed under
section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293). These product-specific energy
usage descriptors shall be used in satisfying all the requirements of
this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 305.3 by adding paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to
read as follows:
Sec. 305.3 Description of appliances and consumer electronics.
* * * * *
(k) Room air cleaner means an air cleaner that--
(1) Is a portable or wall mounted (fixed) unit, excluding ceiling
mounted unit, that plugs into an electrical outlet;
(2) Operates with a fan for air circulation; and
(3) Contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate
particulates.
The term portable is as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022, and the term fixed is as defined in section 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-
2022.
(l) Clothes dryer means a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry
fabrics in a
[[Page 7589]]
tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is either
gas or electricity, and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an
electric motor(s).
(m) Miscellaneous refrigeration product means a consumer
refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer,
or freezer, which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration
products.
(n) Portable electric spa means a factory-built electric spa or hot
tub, supplied with equipment for heating and circulating water at the
time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment.
0
4. Revise Sec. 305.9 to read as follows:
Sec. 305.9 Duty to provide labels on websites and to retailers.
(a) For each covered product required by this part to bear an
EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label, the manufacturer must make a copy
of the label available on a publicly accessible website in a manner
that allows catalog sellers to hyperlink to the label or download it
for use in websites or paper catalogs. The label for each specific
model must remain on the website for six months after production of
that model ceases.
(b) For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, miscellaneous
refrigeration products, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, and
clothes dryers, manufacturers must provide a copy of the label required
by this part to a retailer upon request of that retailer, in a form
requested by the retailer, such as physical or electronic.
0
5. Amend Sec. 305.10 by revising paragraph (h) and adding paragraphs
(m), (n), (o), and (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.10 Determinations of capacity.
* * * * *
(h) Furnaces (including boilers). The capacity shall be the heating
capacity in Btu's per hour, rounded to the nearest 1,000 Btu's per
hour, as determined according to appendices N and EE to 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, as applicable.
* * * * *
(m) Room air cleaners: The capacity shall be the effective room
size according to10 CFR parts 429 and 430, subpart B, with rounding
determined in accordance with 10 CFR part 430.
(n) Clothes dryers: The capacity shall be the drum capacity as
determined according to Department of Energy test procedures in 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, expressed in terms of ``Capacity (tub volume)'' in
cubic feet, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a cubic foot, and the
capacity class designations ``standard'' or ``compact.''
(o) Miscellaneous refrigeration product: The capacity shall be the
total refrigerated volume (VT) in cubic feet, rounded to the nearest
one-tenth of a cubic foot, as determined according to appendix A to 10
CFR part 430, subpart B.
(p) Portable Electric Spa: The capacity shall be the fill volume,
which means the volume of water held by the portable electric spa when
it is filled as specified in appendix GG to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
0
6. Amend Sec. 305.11 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read
as follows:
Sec. 305.11 Submission of data.
(a) * * *
(3) Manufacturers of televisions shall submit annually a report
containing the brand name; model number; screen size (diagonal in
inches); on mode power consumption, standby mode power consumption;
dynamic luminance; and annual energy consumption (kWh/year) for each
basic model in current production. The report should also include a
starting serial number, date code, or other means of identifying the
date of manufacture with the first submission for each basic model. In
lieu of submitting the required information to the Commission as
required by this section, manufacturers may submit such information to
the Department of Energy via the Compliance and Certification
Management System (CCMS) at https://regulations.doe.gov/ccms as
provided by 10 CFR 429.12.
* * * * *
(b)(1) All data required by paragraph (a) of this section except
serial numbers shall be submitted to the Commission annually, on or
before the following dates:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline
Product category for data
submission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerators.............................................. Aug. 1.
Refrigerators-freezers..................................... Aug. 1.
Freezers................................................... Aug. 1.
Miscellaneous refrigeration products....................... Aug. 1.
Central air conditioners................................... July 1.
Heat pumps................................................. July 1.
Dishwashers................................................ June 1.
Water heaters.............................................. May 1.
Room air conditioners...................................... July 1.
Portable air conditioners.................................. Feb. 1.
Room air cleaners.......................................... Dec. 1.
Furnaces................................................... May 1.
Pool heaters............................................... May 1.
Portable Electric Spas..................................... TBD.
Clothes washers............................................ Oct. 1.
Clothes dryers............................................. Oct. 1.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts.................................. Mar. 1.
Showerheads................................................ Mar. 1.
Faucets.................................................... Mar. 1.
Water closets.............................................. Mar. 1.
Ceiling fans............................................... Mar. 1.
Urinals.................................................... Mar. 1.
Metal halide lamp fixtures................................. Sept. 1.
General service fluorescent lamps.......................... Mar. 1.
Medium base compact fluorescent lamps...................... Mar. 1.
General service incandescent lamps......................... Mar. 1.
Televisions................................................ June 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 305.12 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 305.12 Ranges of comparability on the required labels.
(a) Range of estimated annual energy costs or energy efficiency
ratings. The range of estimated annual operating costs or energy
efficiency ratings for each covered product (except televisions,
fluorescent lamp ballasts, lamps, metal halide lamp fixtures,
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals) shall be taken from
the appropriate appendix to this part in effect at the time the labels
are affixed to the product. The Commission shall publish revised ranges
in the Federal Register in 2027. When the ranges are revised, all
information disseminated after 180 days following the publication of
the revision shall conform to the revised ranges. Products that have
been labeled prior to the effective date of a modification under this
section need not be relabeled.
(b) Representative average unit energy cost. The Representative
Average Unit Energy Cost to be used on labels as required by Sec. Sec.
305.14 through 305.19 and disclosures as required by Sec. 305.27 are
listed in appendices K1 and K2 to this part. The Commission shall
publish revised Representative Average Unit Energy Cost figures in the
Federal Register in 2027. When the cost figures are revised, all
information disseminated after 180 days following the publication of
the revision shall conform to the new cost figure.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec. 305.13 to read as follows:
Sec. 305.13 Layout, format, and placement of labels for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration
products, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, water
heaters, room air conditioners, portable air conditioners, room air
cleaners, portable electric spas, and pool heaters.
(a) Coverage. The requirements of this section apply to labels for
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
[[Page 7590]]
miscellaneous refrigeration products, dishwashers, clothes washers,
clothes dryers, water heaters, room air conditioners, portable air
conditioners, room air cleaners, portable electric spas, and pool
heaters.
(b) Layout. Energy labels shall use one size, similar colors, and
typefaces with consistent positioning of headline, copy, and charts to
maintain uniformity for immediate consumer recognition and readability.
With the exception of instantaneous water heaters, trim size dimensions
for the labels shall be as follows: Width must be between 5\1/4\ inches
and 5\1/2\ inches (13.34 cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between
7\3/8\ inches (18.73 cm.) and 7\5/8\ (19.37 cm.). Labels for
instantaneous water heaters may be as small as a 3\3/4\ inches (9.53
cm.) in width and 4\7/8\ inches (12.38 cm.) in length. All positioning,
spacing, type sizes, and line widths should be similar to and
consistent with the prototype and sample labels in appendix L to this
part.
(c) Type style and setting. The Arial Narrow series typeface or
equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific sizes and
faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels. No hyphenation
should be used in setting headline or copy text. Positioning and
spacing should follow the prototypes closely. See the prototype labels
for specific directions.
(d) Colors. Except as indicated in paragraph (e)(3) of this
section, the basic colors of all labels covered by this section shall
be process yellow or equivalent and process black. The label shall be
printed full bleed process yellow. All type and graphics shall be print
process black.
(e) Label types. Except as indicated in paragraphs (e)(3) and
(e)(4) of this section, the labels must be affixed to the product in
the form of an adhesive label for any product covered by this section,
or in the form of a hang tag for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, dishwashers, clothes
washers, and clothes dryers as follows:
(1) Adhesive labels. All adhesive labels should be applied so they
can be easily removed without the use of tools or liquids, other than
water. The adhesion capacity and paper stock should be sufficient to
prevent their dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain
of distribution to the retailer or consumer. In lieu of a label with
adhesive backing, manufacturers may adhere the label with adhesive
tape, provided the tape is affixed along the entire top and bottom of
the label.
(2) Hang tags. Labels may be affixed to the product interior in the
form of a hang tag using cable ties or double strings connected through
reinforced punch holes, or with attachment and label material of
equivalent or greater strength and durability. If paper stock is used
for hang tags, it shall have a basic weight sufficient to prevent
dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution
to the retailer or consumer. When materials are used to attach the hang
tags to appliance products, the materials shall be of sufficient
strength to ensure that if gradual pressure is applied to the hang tag
by pulling it away from where it is affixed to the product, the hang
tag will tear before the material used to affix the hang tag to the
product breaks.
(3) Package labels for certain products. Labels for electric and
gas instantaneous water heaters shall be printed on or affixed to the
product's packaging in a conspicuous location. Labels for room air
conditioners, portable air conditioners, air cleaners, and portable
electric spas shall be printed on or affixed to the principal display
panel of the product's packaging. The labels for electric and gas
instantaneous water heaters, room air conditioners, room air cleaners,
and portable air conditioners shall be black type and graphics on a
process yellow or other neutral contrasting background.
(4) Non-Showroom Designated Appliances: For refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration products,
dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers not designated by
manufacturers as showroom display units or otherwise shipped by
manufacturers with point of purchase material intended for retail or
showroom display, manufacturers may include the label with the unit
consistent with the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
Such labels must be printed on paper stock but need not comply with the
specific requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
(f) Placement--
(1) Adhesive labels. Manufacturers shall affix adhesive labels to
the covered products in such a position that it is easily read by a
consumer examining the product. The label should be generally located
on the upper-right-front corner of the product's front exterior.
However, some other prominent location may be used as long as the label
will not become dislodged during normal handling throughout the chain
of distribution to the retailer or consumer. The label can be displayed
in the form of a flap tag adhered to the top of the appliance and bent
(folded at 90[deg]) to hang over the front, as long as this can be done
with assurance that it will be readily visible.
(2) Hang tags. A hang tag shall be affixed to the interior of the
product in such a position that it can be easily read by a consumer
examining the product. A hang tag can be affixed in any position that
meets this requirement as long as the label will not become dislodged
during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution to the
retailer or consumer. Hang tags may only be affixed in refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products,
dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers.
(3) Non-Showroom-Designated Appliance Labels. Labels for units
covered by paragraph (e)(4) of this section must be shipped with the
product in a location readily visible to retailers and consumers
examining the contents of the product's packaging.
(g) Retailer Responsibilities. Retailers who choose to display any
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, miscellaneous refrigerator
product, dishwasher, clothes washer, and clothes dryer must ensure the
model's EnergyGuide label is affixed to the product in a location
easily visible to a consumer examining the product.
0
9. Amend Sec. 305.14 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a)(9)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.14 Label content for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products.
(a) * * *
(9) * * *
(iv) Labels for freezers and miscellaneous refrigeration products
must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in
appendix L and specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the
appropriate energy cost figure):
Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use.
[For freezers, insert statement required by paragraph (a)(10)(v) of
this section. For miscellaneous refrigeration products, add the
following statement: Cost range based on models of similar size
capacity.].
Estimated energy cost based on a national average electricity cost
of __cents per kWh.
ftc.gov/energy.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 305.15 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a) to read as follows:
[[Page 7591]]
Sec. 305.15 Label content for clothes washers and clothes dryers.
(a) Label content.
(1) Headlines and texts, as illustrated in the prototype and sample
labels in appendix L to this part, are standard for all labels.
(2) Name of manufacturer or private labeler shall, in the case of a
corporation, be deemed to be satisfied only by the actual corporate
name, which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular
division of the corporation. In the case of an individual, partnership,
or association, the name under which the business is conducted shall be
used. Inclusion of the name of the manufacturer or private labeler is
optional at the discretion of the manufacturer or private labeler.
(3) Model number(s) will be the designation given by the
manufacturer or private labeler.
(4) Capacity or size is that determined in accordance with this
part.
(5) Estimated annual operating costs are as determined in
accordance with this part. Labels must disclose estimated annual
operating cost for both electricity and/or natural gas as illustrated
in the sample labels in appendix L to this part.
(6) Unless otherwise indicated in this paragraph, ranges of
comparability for estimated annual operating costs are found in the
appropriate appendices accompanying this part.
(7) Placement of the labeled product on the scale shall be
proportionate to the lowest and highest estimated annual operating
costs.
(8) Labels for clothes washers must contain the model's estimated
annual energy consumption as determined in accordance with this part
and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels for clothes
dryers must contain the model's combined energy factor (CEF) as
determined in accordance with this part and as indicated on the sample
labels in appendix L.
(9) The clothes washer label shall contain the text and graphics
illustrated in the sample labels in appendix L, including the
statement:
Compare ONLY to other labels with yellow numbers.
Labels with yellow numbers are based on the same test procedures.
(10) Labels for clothes washers must contain a statement as
illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as
follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate capacity and energy
cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
Estimated energy cost is based on six wash loads a week and a
national average electricity cost __ of cents per kWh and natural gas
cost of $ __ per therm.
ftc.gov/energy.
(11) The clothes dryer label shall contain the text and graphics
illustrated in the sample labels in appendix L, including a statement
as illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as
follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate capacity and energy
cost figures):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
Estimated energy cost is based on five wash loads a week and a
national average [electricity cost of __ cents per kWh or natural gas
cost of $ __ per therm].
ftc.gov/energy.
(12) The following statement shall appear on each label as
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L:
Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer
purchase.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 305.18 by revising the section heading and paragraphs
(a)(8) and (a)(9), redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph
(a)(12), and adding new paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as
follows:
Sec. 305.18 Label content for room air conditioners, portable air
conditioners, and room air cleaners.
(a) * * *
(8) Labels for room air conditioners, portable air conditioners,
and room air cleaners must contain the model's estimated annual energy
consumption as determined in accordance with this part and as indicated
on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels must contain the model's
energy efficiency rating, as applicable, as determined in accordance
with this part and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L to
this part.
(9) Labels for room air conditioners and portable air conditioners
must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in
appendix L of this part and specified as follows (fill in the blanks
with the appropriate model type, year, energy type, and energy cost
figure):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on models [of similar capacity; of similar
capacity without reverse cycle and with louvered sides; of similar
capacity without reverse cycle and without louvered sides; with
reverse cycle and with louvered sides; or with reverse cycle and
without louvered sides].
Estimated annual energy cost is based on a national average
electricity cost of __cents per kWh and a seasonal use of 8 hours
use per day over a 3-month period.
For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.
(10) Labels for air cleaners must contain the model's estimated
annual energy consumption as determined in accordance with this part
and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels must also
contain the model's independent energy factor and clean air delivery
rate, as applicable, as determined in accordance with this part and
displayed on the label consistent with the sample labels in appendix L
to this part.
(11) Labels for air cleaners must contain a statement as
illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L of this part and
specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate model
type, year, energy type, and energy cost figure):
Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
Cost range based only on models of similar capacity.
The Clean Air Delivery Rate is based on the removal of particulate
matter that is 2.5 micrometers wide or smaller (PM2.5 CADR).
Estimated annual energy cost is based on 16 hours of operation per
day and a national average electricity cost of __cents per kWh.
For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.
(12) The following statement shall appear on each label as
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L:
Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer
purchase.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 305.19 by revising the section heading and paragraph
(a) introductory text, redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c),
and adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.19 Label content for pool heaters and portable electric
spas.
(a) Label content for pool heaters.
* * * * *
(b) Label content for electric spas.
(1) Headlines and texts, as illustrated in the prototype and sample
labels in appendix L to this part, are standard for all labels.
(2) Name of manufacturer or private labeler shall, in the case of a
corporation, be deemed to be satisfied only by the actual corporate
name,
[[Page 7592]]
which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular
division of the corporation. In the case of an individual, partnership,
or association, the name under which the business is conducted shall be
used. Inclusion of the name of the manufacturer or private labeler is
optional at the discretion of the manufacturer or private labeler.
(3) Model number(s) will be the designation given by the
manufacturer or private labeler.
(4) Capacity or size is that determined in accordance with this
part.
(5) Estimated annual heating costs are as determined in accordance
with this part.
(6) Energy Used in watts is as determined in accordance with this
part.
(7) Unless otherwise indicated in this paragraph, ranges of
comparability for estimated annual heating costs are found in the
appropriate appendices accompanying this part.
(8) Placement of the labeled product on the scale shall be
proportionate to the lowest and highest annual costs.
(9) Labels must contain the model's energy use in watts as
determined in accordance with this part and as indicated on the sample
labels in appendix L to this part.
(10) Labels must contain a statement as illustrated in the
prototype labels in appendix L and specified as follows:
Cost range based on models with similar capacity.
The cost estimate reflects only the heating cost of this model and
does not include other aspects of operation such as water circulation,
filtration, or lights.
This label's heating cost estimate is based on continuous heating
throughout the year and a national average electricity cost of [__]
cents per kWh.
For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.
(11) The following statement shall appear on each label as
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L to this
part:
Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer
purchase.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 305.20 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d),
(f)(11), and (f)(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.20 Labeling for central air conditioners, heat pumps, and
furnaces.
(a) Layout. All energy labels for central air conditioners, heat
pumps, and furnaces (including boilers) shall use one size, similar
colors, and typefaces with consistent positioning of headline, copy,
and charts to maintain uniformity for immediate consumer recognition
and readability. Trim size dimensions for all labels shall be as
follows: width must be between 5\1/4\ inches and 5\1/2\ inches (13.34
cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between 7\3/8\ inches (18.78 cm.)
and 7\5/8\ (19.34 cm.). All positioning, spacing, type sizes, and line
widths should be similar to and consistent with the prototype and
sample labels in appendix L.
(b) Type style and setting. The Arial Narrow series typeface or
equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific sizes and
faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels. No hyphenation
should be used in setting headline or copy text. Positioning and
spacing should follow the prototypes closely. See the prototype labels
for specific directions.
(c) Colors. The basic colors of all labels covered by this section
shall be process yellow or equivalent and process black. The label
shall be printed full bleed process yellow. All type and graphics shall
be print process black.
(d) Label type. The labels must be affixed in the form of an
adhesive label, unless otherwise indicated by this section. The
adhesion capacity and paper stock should be sufficient to prevent their
dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution
to the retailer or consumer.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(11) Manufacturers of furnaces (including boilers) shipped with
more than one input nozzle to be installed in the field, but no nozzle
factory installed, must label such furnaces with the AFUE of the system
when it is set up with the nozzle that results in the lowest AFUE
rating. See paragraph (f)(13) of this section for furnaces shipped with
more than one input nozzle, one of which is factory installed.
* * * * *
(13) Manufacturers of furnaces (including boilers) must label their
products with the AFUE rating associated with the furnace's input
capacity set by the manufacturer at shipment. The furnace label may
also contain a chart, as illustrated in sample label 9B in appendix L
to this part, indicating the efficiency rating at up to three
additional input capacities offered by the manufacturer. Consistent
with paragraph (f)(10)(iii) of this section, labels for furnaces may
include the ENERGY STAR logo only if the model qualifies for that
program on all input capacities displayed on the label.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 305.22 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.22 Energy information disclosures for heating and cooling
equipment.
* * * * *
(c) Furnace labels. If an installer installs a furnace (including
boiler) with an input capacity different from that set by the
manufacturer and the manufacturer identifies alternative capacities on
the label, the installer must permanently mark the appropriate box on
the EnergyGuide label displaying the installed input capacity and the
associated AFUE as illustrated in Sample Labels in appendix L to this
part.
0
15. Amend Sec. 305.27 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i), paragraph
(a)(2), and paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.27 Paper catalogs and websites.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Products required to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels.
All websites advertising covered products required to have an
EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label under this part must display, for
each model, a recognizable and legible image of the label required for
that product by this part. The website may hyperlink to the image of
the label using a recognizable thumbnail image or the sample
EnergyGuide and Lighting Facts icons depicted in appendix L of this
part. The website must hyperlink the image in a way that does not
require consumers to save the hyperlinked image to view it.
* * * * *
(2) Format. The required website disclosures, whether label image,
icon, or text, must appear clearly and conspicuously and in close
proximity to the covered product's price on each web page that contains
a detailed description of the covered product and its price. The label
and hyperlink icon must conform to the prototypes in appendix L, but
may be altered in size to accommodate the web page's design, as long as
they remain clear and conspicuous to consumers viewing the page. The
image or icon required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must be
readily visible to the consumer without requiring any additional
scrolling, clicking, or other similar actions.
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Products required to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels.
All paper catalogs advertising covered products required by this part
to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels illustrated in appendix L
of this part must either display an image of the full label prepared in
accordance with this
[[Page 7593]]
part, or make a text disclosure as follows:
(A) Refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, and miscellaneous
refrigerator product. The capacity of the model determined in
accordance with this part, the estimated annual operating cost
determined in accordance with this part, and a disclosure stating
``Your energy cost depends on your utility rates and use. The estimated
cost is based on cents per kWh. For more information, visit
www.ftc.gov/energy.''
(B) Room air conditioners, portable air conditioners, air cleaners,
and water heaters. The capacity of the model determined in accordance
with this part, the estimated annual operating cost determined in
accordance with this part, and a disclosure stating ``Your operating
costs will depend on your utility rates and use. The estimated
operating cost is based on a [electricity, natural gas, propane, or
oil] cost of [$ __per kWh, therm, or gallon]. For more information,
visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
(C) Clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers. The capacity
of the model determined in accordance with this part, the estimated
annual operating cost determined in accordance with this part, and a
disclosure stating ``Your energy cost depends on your utility rates and
use. The estimated cost is based on [4 washloads a week for
dishwashers, or 8 washloads a week for clothes washers, or 5 washloads
a week for clothes dryers] and __cents per kWh for electricity and
$__per therm for natural gas. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
(D) General service fluorescent lamps or general service lamps. All
the information concerning that lamp required by Sec. 305.23 of this
part to be disclosed on the lamp's package, and, for general service
lamps, a disclosure stating ``Your energy cost depends on your utility
rates and use. The estimated cost and life is based on 11 cents per kWh
and 3 hours of use per day. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.'' For the ``Light Appearance'' disclosure required by Sec.
305.23(b)(3)(iv), the catalog need only disclose the lamp's correlated
color temperature in Kelvin (e.g., 2700 K). General service fluorescent
lamps or incandescent reflector lamps must also include a capital
letter ``E'' printed within a circle and the statement described in
Sec. 305.23(g)(1).
(E) Ceiling fans. All the information required by Sec. 305.21.
(F) Televisions. The estimated annual operating cost determined in
accordance with this part and a disclosure stating ``Your energy cost
depends on your utility rates and use. The estimated cost is based on
12 cents per kWh and 5 hours of use per day. For more information,
visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
(G) Central air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces (including
boilers), and pool heaters. The capacity of the model determined in
accordance with this part and the energy efficiency or thermal
efficiency ratings determined in accordance with this part on each page
that lists the covered product.
(H) Portable electric spa. The capacity of the model determined in
accordance with this part, the estimated annual operating cost
determined in accordance with this part, a disclosure stating ``This
label's heating cost estimate is based on continuous heating throughout
the year and a national average electricity cost of [__] cents per
kWh,'' and a disclosure stating ``Your operating costs will depend on
your utility rates and use. The estimated operating cost is based on a
[electricity, natural gas, propane, or oil] cost of [$__per kWh, therm,
or gallon]. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
* * * * *
0
16. Add Appendix B4 to read as follows:
Appendix B4 to Part 305--Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Range
Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of estimated
annual energy costs
Manufacturer's rated total refrigerated volume in (dollars/year)
cubic feet ---------------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 2.5..................................... (*) (*)
2.6 to 5.0........................................ (*) (*)
5.1 to 7.5........................................ (*) (*)
7.6 to 10.0....................................... (*) (*)
10.1 to 12.5...................................... (*) (*)
12.6 to 15.0...................................... (*) (*)
15.1 to 17.5...................................... (*) (*)
17.6 to 20.0...................................... (*) (*)
20.1 to 22.5...................................... (*) (*)
22.6 and over..................................... (*) (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.
0
17. Add Appendix E3 to read as follows:
Appendix E3 to Part 305--Air Cleaners Range Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of estimated
annual energy costs
Manufacturer's rated room size in square feet (dollars/year)
---------------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small (15-154 sq. ft.)............................ (*) (*)
Medium (155-235 sq. ft.).......................... (*) (*)
Large (236 and greater sq. ft.)................... (*) (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.
0
18. Add Appendix F3 and F4 to read as follows:
Appendix F3 to Part 305--Compact Clothes Dryers Range Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of estimated
annual energy costs
Capacity (dollars/year)
---------------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact........................................... (*) (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.
Appendix F4 to Part 305--Standard Clothes Dryers Range Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of estimated
annual energy costs
Capacity (dollars/year)
---------------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard.......................................... (*) (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.
0
19. Add Appendix J3 to read as follows:
Appendix J3 to Part 305--Portable Electric Spas Range Information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range of estimated
annual heating costs
Manufacturer's rated capacity in gallons (dollars/year)
---------------------
Low High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200 sq. ft. or less............................... (*) (*)
201-400 sq. ft.................................... (*) (*)
401-600 sq. ft.................................... (*) (*)
600 sq. ft. or larger............................. (*) (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.
0
20. Revise Appendix K1 to read as follows:
Appendix K1 to Part 305--Representative Average Unit Energy Costs for
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, Miscellaneous
Refrigerator Products, Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, Dishwashers,
Air Cleaners, Portable Electric Spas, and Water Heater Labels
This Table contains the representative unit energy costs that must
be utilized to calculate estimated annual energy cost disclosures
required under this Part for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,
[[Page 7594]]
freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, clothes washers, clothes
dryers, dishwashers, air cleaners, portable electric spas, and water
heaters. This Table is based on information published by the U.S.
Department of Energy in 2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In commonly used As required by DOE
Type of energy terms test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity................. [cent]14/kWh 1 2.... $.1400/kWh.
Natural Gas................. $1.21/therm,\3\ $0.00001209/Btu.\4\
$12.6/MCF 5 6.
No. 2 Heating Oil........... $3.45/gallon \7\.... $0.00002511/Btu.
Propane..................... $2.23/gallon \8\.... $0.00002446/Btu.
Kerosene.................... $4.01/gallon \9\.... $0.00002973/Btu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ kWh stands for kiloWatt hour.
\2\ 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu.
\3\ 1 therm = 100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes.
\4\ Btu stands for British thermal unit.
\5\ MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet.
\6\ For the purposes of this table, 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an
energy equivalence of 1,039 Btu.
\7\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of No. 2 heating oil has
an energy equivalence of 138,500 Btu.
\8\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of liquid propane has an
energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu.
\9\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of kerosene has an energy
equivalence of 135,000 Btu.
0
21. Amend Appendix L by adding samples labels 18, 19, and 20 to read as
follows:
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
Appendix L to Part 305--Sample Labels
* * * * *
[[Page 7595]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.008
[[Page 7596]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.009
[[Page 7597]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.010
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-01601 Filed 2-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C