[Billing Code: 6750-01P] 

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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION 

IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

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, 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex B), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 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: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS: 

I. Overview 

II. Background 

III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Labeling for New Product Categories 

A. Support for Labeling All New Products 

B. Air Cleaners (“Air Purifiers”) 

C. Clothes Dryers 

D. Miscellaneous Refrigerator Products 

E. Portable Electric Spas 

F. Residential Ice Makers 

G. Humidifiers 

H. Miscellaneous Gas Products 

I. Cooking Tops 

J. Additional Lamps (Light Bulbs) 

V. Issues Relating to Existing Products 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

A. Clothes Washer Labels 

B. Dishwashers 

C. Television Ranges 

D. Water Heaters 

E. Pool Heaters 

F. Boilers 

VI. Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns 

A. Comments on Shopping Trends 

B. Comments on Label Placement for Showroom Appliances 

C. Comments on Labeling for Heating and Cooling Equipment 

D. Proposed Changes to Label Placement Requirements 

VII. Proposals for New Label Content 

VIII. Additional Issues 

A. Lamp Reporting 

B. Transitional Label Language 

C. Range Updates 

D. Compliance Dates for Ranges 

E. Updating the Television Test Data Requirements 

F. Light Bulb and Ceiling Fan Labels 

G. Categorical Ranking System 

H. Bilingual Information 

I. Coordination with Other Agencies 

3 
 

 

 

 

J. Prescriptive Requirements 

K. Online Label Requirements 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken 

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule 

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules 

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule 

XI. Request for Comment 

XII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their Advisors 

XIII. Proposed Rule Language 

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 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule in 1979,1 pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA”). 2 The Rule3 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 energyrelated 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 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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). 

16 CFR 305.12. 

6 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 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. 

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 

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). 

10 The comments are available at www.regulations.gov. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 C.F.R. Part 309) and Fuel Economy Guides (16 CFR Part 259). 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

12 See, e.g., https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-room-aircleaners/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). 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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. 

10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 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 

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 

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 – ft2

) = cigarette smoke CADR x 1.55; Room Size (square meters – m2) = Room Size (ft2) 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 ft2 (86.4 m2). 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. 

11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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). 

20 See “2023-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial and 

12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

Industrial Equipment: Air Cleaners, March 2023,” Chapter 3, 

https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0024. 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. 

13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

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 

23 See 88 FR 14014 (Mar. 6, 2023). 

14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

competing models on the market had a limited range of energy use. 

24 In 2014, the Commission 

reconsidered that decision, and again concluded 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. 

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, 

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). 

15 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

See 80 FR at 67296. 

16 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

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). 

17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 

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. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no evidence demonstrates the costs of labeling dryers would “substantially outweigh any 

potential benefits to consumers.” 44 FR at 66467–68. 

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 

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 

29 See 86 FR 56608, 56644 (Oct. 8, 2021). 

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). 

19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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) 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use between 100 to 205 kWh/yr. 31 Moreover, DOE currently has test procedures and standards 

for these products. 32 

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 

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).

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. 

21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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). 

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 

34 87 FR 8745 (Feb. 16, 2022); 87 FR 54123 (Sept. 2, 2022) codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 

22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 . . . 

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 

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 

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.

36 87 FR 8745, 8747 (Feb. 16, 2022). 

23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

information suggests labeling will pose burdens significantly outweighing the benefits. 

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.” 

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 

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). 

24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

use disclosure. 39 

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-andmortar 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 

Comments: Commenters specifically addressing residential ice makers opposed 

labeling for these products. 41 According to AHAM and Whirlpool, the DOE commercial test 

39 As the California IOUs indicated, the Commission considered and declined to adopt a fivestar 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. 

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. 41 Some commenters (e.g., California IOUs) generally supported labeling for new product 

categories, like residential ice makers, without further elaboration. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

procedure is not appropriate for residential models. According to these commenters, the 

residential models, in contrast to commercial models, generally have lower capacity, are standalone, 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. 

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 

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 

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). 

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). 

26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DOE or EPA ENERGY STAR 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. 

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 

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 

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. 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.”

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. 

27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suitable for humidifier labeling or otherwise provided specific support for labeling these 

products. 

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 

Comments: Commenters specifically addressing miscellaneous gas products generally 

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). 

28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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.” 

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.

50 Without further elaboration, commenter Merriam suggested adding space heaters in addition 

to the Miscellaneous gas products (“Hearth Products”). 

29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Comments: One commenter, the California IOUs, supported labeling. 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 

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). 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

56 Natural gas industry organizations (the “Group”) raised similar concerns. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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. 

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).

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.” 

32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 different cost metric such as “Effective Energy Cost” to 

avoid confusion. 60 

Discussion: The inclusion of information reflecting a washer’s ability to reduce 

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. 

34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

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. 

35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)). 

37 
 

 

 

 

 

law prohibits removal of this 

label before consumer purchase. 

EnERGY 

GUIDE+ 

Television 

XYZ Corporation 

Model ABC-L 

Estimated Yearly 

Energy Cost 

$18 

• Based on 12 cents per kWh 

and 5 hours use per day 

• Estimated yearly electricity 

use of this model 150 kWh 

• Your cost depends on 

your utility rates and use. 

Visit ftc.gov/energy 

Illustration 1 

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 

63 The Rule currently makes this allowance for electric instantaneous water heaters only. 16 

CFR 305.13(e)(3). 

38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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). 

39 
 

 

.S. Government Federal law prohibits removal of this label 

before consumer purchase. 

Instantaneous 

Water Heater - Electricity 

Capacity: 4 gallon per minute 

XYZ Corporation 

Model XXXXXXX 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$229 ,..I 

$179 $235 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

• Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on electric models with a LJ gallons 

per minute rating LJ. • Estimated energy cost is based on a national average 

electricity cost of LJ cents per kWh. 

• Estimated yearly energy use: _ kWh. 

ftc.gov/energy 

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. 

Illustration 2 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

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.

67 Most EnergyGuide labels required by part 305 routinely display some sort of capacity figure. 

68 88 FR 34624 (May 30, 2023). 

41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

comment on whether any label changes should coincide with this DOE compliance date. 

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 energyrelated 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’ 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 

42 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

On a separate issue, the Marley Company and Crown recommended eliminating 

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. 

43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 section 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, sections 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 

sections 305.20(f)(11) and 305.20(f)(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 

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. 

44 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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). 

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 section 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 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. 

VI. Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns 

In the ANPR, the Commission solicited comments on alternatives to the current 

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. 

45 
 

 

 

 

“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, 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 

46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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.” 

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. 

47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.” 

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. 

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. 

48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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., sections 305.9, 305.11(a)(5), and 305.27). 

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). 

49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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. 

51 
 

 

 

 

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 

52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.” 

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 

79 See 80 FR 67285, 67291-92 (Nov. 2, 2015), codified at 16 CFR 305. 

53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 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 elabeling 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 

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). 

54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

consumer does not view either the product or the label. 81 

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. 

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 

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.” 

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. 

55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

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 

83 For further discussion of boiler labeling, see Section V of this preamble. 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. 

56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Under proposed § 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 

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.

86 These changes would also apply to dryers and miscellaneous refrigerators if they are labeled 

following this proceeding. 

57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

retailers upon request to ease retailer burdens. Given this new responsibility, the proposal 

provides a year for retailers to comply. The Commission seeks comments on all aspects of this 

proposal. 

For consumers, the proposed § 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 

87 Labels are already widely available through retail and manufacturer websites as well as 

DOE’s website as required by the Rule. 

58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

deprive other consumers of valuable information they rely upon. 88 

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). 

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, 

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.

89 76 FR 1038, 1044-45 (Jan. 6, 2011). 

59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

90 72 FR 49948, 49956 (Aug. 29, 2007). 

91 In addition, an anonymous commenter (#0013), citing research about the use of ozonedepleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons (“HCFCs”) in some refrigeration products, suggested that 

any refrigeration products containing HCFCs should contain labels informing consumers of such, 

60 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 

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. 

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. 

61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

decrease the label’s utility for consumers (see Sections V.F and VI supra). 

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. 

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, 

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). 

62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

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. 

94 81 FR 63634 (Sept. 15, 2016); 16 CFR 305.11 (FTC reporting requirements). 

95 81 FR at 63636. 

63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

96 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013). 

64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

showrooms displaying similar 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. 

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 section 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 

97 72 FR 49948, 49959 (Aug.29, 2007). 

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). 

66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.” 

Discussion: In response to comments, the Commission proposes extending the 

transition period for label range and cost updates under section 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 section 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. 

F. Light Bulb and Ceiling Fan Labels 

Background and Discussion: In the ANPR, the Commission sought comment on 

99 88 FR 16082 (Mar. 5, 2023). 

67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

68 
 

 

 

 

 

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 section 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 set compliance dates for the 

next scheduled update in 2027 to minimize disruption to manufacturers’ normal production 

69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

100 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007). 

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). 

70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 nonEnglish 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 

71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 

102 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-regulations/general-servicelamps/24407. 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 section 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 

section 305.20(a) related to picas, centering, and depth, as well as requirements about type style 

and setting in section 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 subsection 305.20(d) because they are unnecessarily prescriptive. Crown, 

a boiler manufacturer, agreed, stating that “label weight and material are irrelevant as long as the 

existing durability requirements are met.” 103 

103 See also The Marley Company comments. 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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., section 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 

16 CFR 305.27. 

74 

104 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the series of product images to increase its prominence.” 105 

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 section 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 

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. 

106 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; see also 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

approved the Rule’s existing information collection requirements through February 29, 2024 

(OMB Control No. 3084-0069). 

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 

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 

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. 

76 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 × 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. 

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 25,000 hours 

[5,000 basic models × 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. 

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. 109 Id. 

77 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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]). 

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. 

78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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 due to 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. 

111 BLS, supra n.108. 

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. 

79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 × 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. 

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 × 

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. 

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 

113 BLS, supra n.108. 

114 See 16 CFR 305.28. 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

estimates these additions will result in an incremental burden of 1,600 hours (400 sellers × 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. 

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 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. 

115 BLS, supra n.108. 

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. 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Subsection 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 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

118 81 FR 62681 (Sept. 12, 2016). 

83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

84 
 

 

 

 

 

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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN 

THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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://www.regulations.gov website. As a 

matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals’ home contact information from 

comments before placing them on the regulations.gov site. 

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, 

85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), 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 in 

particular competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, 

formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed 

in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 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 

86 
 

 

 

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-2023-00XX 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 [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL 

REGISTER]. 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 [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN FEDERAL REGISTER], 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. 

87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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). 

XIII. Proposed Rule Language 

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”) 

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

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

2. In § 305.2, redesignate paragraph and republish (l)(24) as paragraph (l)(27), add new 

paragraphs (l)(24), (l)(25), and (l)(26), and revise paragraph (p) to read as follows: 

§ 305.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(24) Room air cleaners. 

(25) Miscellaneous refrigeration products. 

88 
 

 

(26) Portable electric spas. 

(27) Any other type of consumer product that the Department of Energy classifies as a covered 

product under section 322(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6292). 

* * * * * 

(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 productspecific energy usage descriptors shall be used in satisfying all the requirements of this part. 

* * * * * 

3. In § 305.3, add paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

89 
 

 

 

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 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. 

4. Revise § 305.9 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

5. In § 305.10, revise paragraph (h) and add paragraphs (m), (n), (o), and (p) to read as 

90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

follows: 

§ 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. 

6. In § 305.11, revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 305.11 Submission of data. 

(a) * * * 

91 
 

 

 

 

(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: 

Product category 

Refrigerators 

Refrigerators-freezers 

Freezers 

Miscellaneous refrigeration products 

Central air conditioners 

Heat pumps 

Dishwashers 

Water heaters 

Room air conditioners 

Portable air conditioners 

Room air cleaners 

Deadline 

for data 

submission 

Aug. 1 

Aug. 1 

Aug. 1 

Aug. 1 

July 1 

July 1 

June 1 

May 1 

July 1 

Feb. 1 

Dec. 1 

92 
 

 

 

Furnaces 

Pool heaters 

Portable Electric Spas 

Clothes washers 

Clothes dryers 

Fluorescent lamp ballasts 

Showerheads 

Faucets 

Water closets 

Ceiling fans 

Urinals 

Metal halide lamp fixtures 

General service fluorescent lamps 

Medium base compact fluorescent lamps 

General service incandescent lamps 

Televisions 

May 1 

May 1 

TBD 

Oct. 1 

Oct. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Sept. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

Mar. 1 

June 1 

* * * * * 

7. In § 305.12, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

used on labels as required by §§ 305.14 through 305.19 and disclosures as required by § 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. 

* * * * * 

8. Revise § 305.13 to read as follows: 

§ 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, refrigeratorfreezers, freezers, 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 51⁄4 inches and 51⁄2 inches 

(13.34 cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between 73⁄8 inches (18.73 cm.) and 7 5⁄8 (19.37 cm.). 

Labels for instantaneous water heaters may be as small as a 33⁄4 inches (9.53 cm.) in width and 

94 
 

 

 

47⁄8 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 

95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

96 
 

 

 

 

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°) 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, refrigeratorfreezer, 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. 

9. Revise the section heading of § 305.14 and revise paragraph (a)(9)(iv) to read as follows: 

§ 305.14 Label content for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, and miscellaneous 

refrigeration products. 

(a) * * * 

97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

(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. 

10. In § 305.15, revise the section heading and revise paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

98 
 

 

(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. 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

* * * * * 

11. In § 305.18, revise the section heading and revise paragraphs (a)(8) and (a)(9), 

redesignate paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph (a)(12), and add paragraph (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

* * * * * 

12. In § 305.19, revise the section heading, revise the heading for paragraph (a), redesignate 

paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), and add paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 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, 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 

102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

103 
 

(c) Additional information. No marks or information other than that specified in this part shall 

appear on or directly adjoining this label except that: 

(1) A part or publication number identification may be included on this label, as desired by the 

manufacturer. If a manufacturer elects to use a part or publication number, it must appear in the 

lower right-hand corner of the label and be set in 12-point type or smaller. 

(2) The energy use disclosure labels required by the governments of Canada or Mexico may 

appear directly adjoining this label, as desired by the manufacturer. 

(3) The manufacturer or private labeler may include the ENERGY STAR logo on the bottom 

right corner of the label for certified products. The logo must be 1 inch by 1 inch in size. Only 

manufacturers that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Energy 

or the Environmental Protection Agency may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels on certified 

covered products; such manufacturers may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels only on those 

covered products that are contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding. 

13. In § 305.20, revise paragraphs (a), (b), (d), (f)(11), and (f)(12) to read as follows: 

§ 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 51⁄4 inches and 51⁄2 

inches (13.34 cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between 73⁄8 inches (18.78 cm.) and 75⁄8 (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. 

104 
 

 

 

 

 

(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. 

(12) * * * 

(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 

105 
 

 

 

 

 

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. 

* * * * * 

14. In § 305.22, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

* * * * * 

(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. 

15. In § 305.27, revise paragraph (a)(1)(i), paragraph (a)(2), and paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read 

as follows: 

§ 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. 

106 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Format. The required Web site 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 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.” 

107 
 

 

 

 

(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.” 

* * * * * 

(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.” 

16. Add Appendix B4 to read as follows: 

APPENDIX B4 TO PART 305 – MISCELLANEOUS REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS 

108 
 

 

 

Range Information 

Manufacturer’s Rated 

Total Refrigerated Volume 

in Cubic feet 

Range of Estimated Annual Energy Costs 

(Dollars/Year) 

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. 

17. Add Appendix E3 to read as follows: 

APPENDIX E3 TO PART 305 – AIR CLEANERS 

Range Information 

Manufacturer’s Rated 

Room Size in Square Feet 

Range of Estimated Annual Energy Costs 

(Dollars/Year) 

Low High 

Small (15-154 sq. ft.) 

Medium (155-235 sq. ft.), 

Large (236 and greater sq. 

ft.) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) No data. 

18. Add Appendix F3 and F4 to read as follows: 

APPENDIX F3 TO PART 305—COMPACT CLOTHES DRYERS 

109 
 

 

Range Information 

Capacity Range of Estimated Annual Energy Costs 

(Dollars/Year) 

Low High 

Compact (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

APPENDIX F4 TO PART 305—STANDARD CLOTHES DRYERS 

Range Information 

Capacity Range of Estimated Annual Energy Costs 

(Dollars/Year) 

Low High 

Standard (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

19. Add Appendix J3 to read as follows: 

APPENDIX J3 TO PART 305 – PORTABLE ELECTRIC SPAS 

Range Information 

Manufacturer’s Rated 

Capacity in Gallons 

Range of Estimated Annual Heating Costs 

(Dollars/Year) 

Low High 

200 sq. ft. or less ............ 

201-400 sq. ft. ............... 

401-600 sq. ft. ............... 

600 sq. ft. or larger......... 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) No data. 

110 
 

 

 

 

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, refrigeratorfreezers, 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. 

Type of Energy In Commonly Used 

Terms 

As required by DOE 

test procedure 

Electricity ¢14/kWh1,2 $.1400/kWh 

Natural Gas $1.21/therm3 

$12.6/MCF5,6 

$0.00001209/Btu4 

No. 2 Heating 

Oil $3.45/gallon7 $0.00002511/Btu 

Propane $2.23/gallon8 $0.00002446/Btu 

Kerosene $4.01/gallon9 $ 0.00002973/Btu 

111 
_____________________________________ 

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. 

21. Amend Appendix L to add Samples Labels 18, 19, and 20. 

112 
.S. Government Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer purchase. 

Air Cleaner 

Recommended Room Size: 100 sq. ft. 

XY Corporation 

Model CKMR7 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$60 

T 

$43 $84 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

125 2.5 

Clean Air Delivery Rate Integrated Energy Factor 

Your cost 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 (PM25 CADR). 

• Estimated energy cost based on 16 hours of operation per day and a national average 

electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh. 

fie.gov/energy 

Sample Label 18 

113 
.S. Government 

Portable Electric Spa 

Fill Volume: ___ _ 

Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer purchase. 

ABC Corporation 

Model WETXJ 

Estimated Yearly Heating Costs 

$90 

T 

$65 $127 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

150watts 

Energy Use 

Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on models of similar capacity. 

• This label's heating cost estimate is based on continuous heating throughout the year 

and a national average electricity cost of U cents per kWh. 

• The cost & energy estimates reflect only the heating cost of this model and does not 

include other aspects of operation such as water circulation, filtration, or lights. 

fie.gov/energy 

Sample Label 19 

114 
.S. Government Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer purchase. 

Clothes Dryer - Electricity 

Capacity: Standard 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$90 

T 

$65 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

150kWh 

Estimated Yearly Electricity Use 

ABC Corporation 

Model XJHN 

$127 

Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on models of similar capacity. 

• Estimated energy cost based on five loads a week and a national average 

electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh. 

fie.gov/energy 

Sample Label 20 

115 
By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Secretary 

116