[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7566-7597]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-01601]



[[Page 7565]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 23

February 2, 2024

Part V





Federal Trade Commission





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





16 CFR Part 305





Energy Labeling Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 7566]]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

[3084-AB15]


Energy Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') 
proposes amendments to improve the Energy Labeling Rule (``Rule''), 
including energy labels for several new consumer product categories and 
changes to label display requirements. Specifically, the Notice seeks 
comment on labels for air cleaners, clothes dryers, miscellaneous 
refrigeration products, and portable electric spas; modifications to 
existing labels for clothes washers, televisions, and several heating 
products; revisions to the current requirements for affixing labels on 
showroom models; and several minor amendments to improve the Rule as 
discussed below.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 2, 2024.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Energy Labeling Rule 
Improvements (16 CFR part 305) (Matter No. R611004)'' on your comment, 
and file your comment online at https://www.regulations.gov/, by 
following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file 
your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex L), Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome (202-326-2889), or 
Hong Park (202-326-2158), Attorneys, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The Commission seeks comment on several proposed changes to the 
Energy Labeling Rule including: (1) labels for air cleaners, clothes 
dryers, miscellaneous refrigeration products, and portable electric 
spas; (2) modifications to existing labels for clothes washers, 
televisions, and several heating products; (3) revisions to the current 
requirements for affixing labels on showroom models; and (4) several 
minor amendments to improve the Rule as discussed below.

II. Background

    The Commission issued the Energy Labeling Rule in 1979,\1\ pursuant 
to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA'').\2\ The 
Rule \3\ requires energy labeling for major home appliances and other 
consumer products to help consumers compare competing models. 
Specifically, it contains labeling requirements for refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, clothes 
washers, room and portable air conditioners, furnaces, central air 
conditioners, heat pumps, plumbing products, lighting products, ceiling 
fans, and televisions. Under EPCA, the FTC has broad authority to 
``require that each covered product in the type or class of covered 
products to which the rule applies bear a label'' disclosing energy use 
information. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). In addition to products named in the 
statute or designated by DOE, FTC may require labels for any consumer 
product provided the label ``is likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.'' \4\ To achieve this goal, the FTC has 
discretion to determine both the manner in which the label is displayed 
as well as the energy-related content of the label.\5\ Additionally, 
the statute gives FTC authority to require retailers to provide labels 
and other disclosures for consumers, both on websites and in stores.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979).
    \2\ 42 U.S.C. 6294. EPCA also requires the Department of Energy 
(``DOE'') to develop test procedures that measure how much energy 
appliances use, and to determine the representative average cost a 
consumer pays for different types of energy. See 10 CFR parts 429 
and 430.
    \3\ 16 CFR part 305.
    \4\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6); see 42 U.S.C. 6291(1) (defining 
``consumer product''). For additional FTC labeling authority, see 42 
U.S.C. 6294(a)(1)-(5). For new product categories that DOE 
classifies as ``covered'' pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b), the FTC may 
prescribe labeling under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3) if (1) the Commission 
determines labeling will assist purchasers in making purchasing 
decisions, (2) DOE has prescribed test procedures for the product 
class, and (3) the Commission concludes labeling for the class is 
economically and technologically feasible.
    \5\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c).
    \6\ EPCA authorizes the Commission to prescribe labeling rules 
under this section applicable to all covered products, including 
rules governing label disclosures at the point of sale. See 42 
U.S.C. 6294(c)(3) and (c)(4) (``A rule under this section applicable 
to a covered product may require disclosure, in any printed matter 
displayed or distributed at the point of sale of such product, of 
any information which may be required under this section to be 
disclosed on the label of such product.''); see also 42 U.S.C. 6298 
(authorizing the Commission to issue rules it ``deems necessary to 
carry out'' the law's provisions). Since its initial promulgation in 
1979 (44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979)), the Rule has contained 
obligations for retailers to display labels to customers for 
particular product categories. See, e.g., 16 CFR 305.22(b)(2) 
(requiring retailers to show consumers the labels for covered 
central air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces prior to 
purchase); 16 CFR 305.26 (requiring retailers to make written 
disclosures at the point of sale). In 2014, the Commission sought 
comment on whether it should require retailers to affix labels on 
units they display in their appliance showrooms. 79 FR 34642, 34658 
(June 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule requires manufacturers to attach yellow EnergyGuide labels 
to many covered products and prohibits retailers from removing these 
labels or rendering them illegible. In addition, it directs sellers, 
including retailers, to post label information on websites and in paper 
catalogs from which consumers can order products. EnergyGuide labels 
for most covered products contain three key disclosures: (1) estimated 
annual energy cost, (2) a product's energy consumption or energy 
efficiency rating as determined by DOE test procedures, (3) and a 
comparability range displaying the highest and lowest energy costs or 
efficiency ratings for all similar models. For cost calculations, the 
Rule specifies national average costs for applicable energy sources 
(e.g., electricity, natural gas, oil) based on DOE estimates. The Rule 
sets a 2027 date, based on a five-year schedule, for updating 
comparability range and annual energy cost information based on 
manufacturer data submitted pursuant to the Rule's reporting 
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 16 CFR 305.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In 2022, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (``ANPR'') seeking comment on potential improvements to the 
Energy Labeling Rule, including whether the Commission should add new 
consumer product categories to the labeling program, change label 
location to match consumer shopping patterns, and streamline existing 
requirements.\8\ In addition, the ANPR sought comment on several 
specific issues including whether the Commission should amend the Rule 
to: (1) modify label content and format, (2) require links to online 
Lighting Facts labels consistent with current EnergyGuide requirements, 
(3) update the electricity cost figure on the Lighting Facts and 
ceiling fan labels, (4) update the refrigerator and clothes washer 
labels to remove dated information about test procedures, and (5) 
ensure the Rule's consistency with DOE requirements. Finally, the ANPR 
sought comment on potential requirements related to repair

[[Page 7567]]

instructions.\9\ The Commission is not seeking further comment on those 
repair issues at this time. While the Commission is not seeking 
additional comment at this time, we remain interested and engaged with 
stakeholders on this issue. As expressed in the Nixing the Fix report, 
we remain concerned about the repairability of products. We continue to 
review comments, research, legislative initiatives and industry 
practices as we evaluate next steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 87 FR 64399 (Oct. 25, 2022).
    \9\ Under EPCA the Commission has authority to require 
manufacturers to provide consumers with ``additional information 
relating to energy consumption, including instructions for the 
maintenance, use, or repair of the covered product'' if the 
Commission finds such information would assist with purchase 
decisions or in the use of the product, and would not be unduly 
burdensome to manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Commission received 48 comments, covering the 
following four areas: (1) potential new product categories; (2) 
existing product categories; (3) label placement requirements; and (4) 
miscellaneous issues. The following section summarizes these comments 
and provides the Commission's analysis.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Labeling for New Product Categories

    The ANPR invited comments on whether to add several new product 
categories to the energy labeling program. In response, commenters 
provided a range of opinions and information. As discussed below, two 
expressed support for expanding labeling to all the proposed products, 
while others focused on specific products. For each specific product, 
we provide relevant background information, summarize the comments, and 
analyze the record.

A. Support for Labeling All New Products

    Two commenters supported labeling on all new products for which the 
Commission sought comments in the ANPR but did not discuss individual 
product categories in detail.\11\ Specifically, Earthjustice asserted 
all these products ``use a substantial amount of energy and exhibit a 
range of annual energy costs across competing similar models.'' 
Additionally, the New York State Energy Research and Development 
Authority (``NYSERDA'') ``strongly support[ed] FTC expanding labeling'' 
across all the new product categories identified. It noted the 
importance of consumer energy labeling for the State of New York to 
meet the State's climate mandates. The NYSERDA further explained that 
labeling encourages energy-efficiency technology by providing consumers 
with information to choose efficient products and by encouraging 
manufacturers to develop higher-efficiency models. It noted that energy 
efficiency benefits not only homeowners but tenants who pay utility 
bills but do not choose installed equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A third commenter, Merriam, suggested the FTC also consider 
labeling for electric vehicles. However, the Commission cannot 
require labels for such products because EPCA specifically excludes 
automobiles from its definition of consumer products. See 42 U.S.C. 
6291(1). In addition, the FTC already addresses alternative fuels 
and alternative fuel vehicles in its Alternative Fuels Rule (16 CFR 
part 309) and Fuel Economy Guides (16 CFR part 259).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Air Cleaners (``Air Purifiers'')

    Background: Air cleaners (or ``air purifiers'') use significant 
amounts of energy and exhibit a substantial range of energy use and 
annual energy costs among similar models. For example, as discussed in 
the ANPR, recent ENERGY STAR data shows models rated for room sizes 
between 150 and 299 square feet range in annual energy use from about 
50 kWh/yr to 360 kWh/yr, resulting in an estimated annual difference of 
more than $30 per year in energy costs (assuming $0.14/kWh),\12\ a 
range similar to many refrigerators subject to labeling. Additionally, 
DOE recently completed proceedings that establish test procedures \13\ 
and final conservation standards \14\ for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-room-air-cleaners/results. EPCA does not include 
air cleaners in its list of covered products, 42 U.S.C. 6292, but 
the Commission has authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3) to require 
labeling if DOE designates them as ``covered products'' and the 
Commission finds labeling will assist purchasers in making 
purchasing decisions and economically and technologically feasible. 
Additionally, the Commission has independent authority to require 
labels for room air cleaners pursuant to its general labeling 
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) if it determines that labeling 
``is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.''
    \13\ 88 FR 14014 (Mar. 6, 2023).
    \14\ 88 FR 21752 (Apr. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: As discussed below, commenters addressing air cleaners 
generally supported energy label requirements once DOE resolved 
questions regarding its test procedure--which it has done.
    While all commenters addressing this issue supported a label, some 
urged the Commission to set a compliance date that takes into account 
DOE's rulemaking. For instance, the Joint Commenters, a collection of 
industry and energy-efficiency organizations, along with the California 
Investor Owned Utilities (``IOUs''), recommended a December 31, 2025 
label compliance date (or three years after final DOE action, whichever 
is later) to coincide with their recommended compliance date for the 
second tier of DOE standards and test procedures.\15\ The Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') also 
recommended FTC wait until DOE publishes a final energy conservation 
standard before conducting a labeling rulemaking, and then require 
labeling by the Joint Commenter's recommended compliance date, or no 
sooner than 2025. In addition, P.R. China, which urged the FTC to 
refrain from issuing labeling rules until DOE clarifies its test 
procedure, noted inconsistencies between DOE's proposed test for 
measuring the Integrated Energy Factor \16\ (``IEF'') and the annual 
energy use (kWh/year) in the ENERGY STAR certification. P.R. China also 
observed consumers can ``easily check the annual energy usage (kWh/
year) of different manufacturers and air purifiers models on the ENERGY 
STAR website.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In response to DOE's reopening for comment its Request for 
Information relating to air cleaner, see 87 FR 11326 (Mar. 1, 2022), 
the Joint Commenters submitted a negotiated joint proposal 
separating implementation of the relevant standards and test 
conditions into two tiers and setting December 31, 2023, and 
December 31, 2025, as the respective compliance deadlines. In the 
event DOE rejects their proposal, the Joint Commenters requested the 
FTC set a compliance date that aligns with DOE's compliance date.
    \16\ The Integrated Energy Factor measures the energy efficiency 
of air cleaners. It is expressed in the smoke Clean Air Delivery 
Rate (``CADR'') per watts and accounts for the energy used in both 
standby mode and operation. See 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. FF at 
Sec. 7; 88 FR 14014, 14023 (Mar. 6, 2023).
    \17\ P.R. China, however, recommended that the FTC not require 
labeling for products without clear test procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters additionally urged the FTC to include a room size 
estimate on the label using a single, consistent test method. For 
instance, the California IOUs explained the lack of a consistent room 
size metric has led to multiple, inconsistent representations affecting 
consumers' ability to make informed decisions, even among top-rated 
products. These utilities also recommended the label disclose the 
parameters used to calculate recommended room size (e.g., ceiling 
height, air changes per hour, and air change frequency). The Joint 
Commenters, which also supported a room size disclosure, urged FTC to 
communicate a model's recommended room size to consumers using a 
specific test method (ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2020). Under the recommended 
procedure, manufacturers would calculate room size in square feet based 
on the removal of at least 80 percent of smoke particles

[[Page 7568]]

in a steady-state room environment (assuming the room experiences 
incoming pollutants at the rate of one air change per hour) and with 
complete mixing in the room. The Joint Commenters also urged the use of 
the CADR value from the AHAM test method to determine the recommended 
room size, as opposed to an alternative such as ``PM 2.5.'' They 
explained engineering tobacco smoke used in the test is a surrogate for 
many of the fine particles found in a home, and thus generates a useful 
performance metric even for consumers who do not smoke.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Joint Commenters stated that a standard first-order 
differential equation that includes these contributions is utilized 
for the calculation, and that is summarized as: Room Size (square 
feet-ft\2\) = cigarette smoke CADR x 1.55; Room Size (square meters-
m\2\) = Room Size (ft\2\) x 0.093. They also explained that the 
maximum allowable CADR that can be measured by the ANSI/AHAM AC-1-
2020 method in the chamber is 600, so the maximum room size that the 
standard can confidently predict performance would be a room of 930 
ft\2\ (86.4 m\2\). For modeling of suggested room size, AHAM assumes 
a room height of 8 feet and the air cleaner producing 4.8 air 
changes per hour of cleaned air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters also urged the Commission to include a CADR 
disclosure on the label. CADR measures the number of cleaned air 
exchanges for a given square footage of space and thus describes more 
than the system's filter efficiency or fan strength. For example, 
Blueair recommended this disclosure because it is widely accepted 
within the industry and can highlight ``energy efficiency and power 
consumption, while also providing information about air filtration.'' 
According to Blueair, models with a high CADR rating optimize both the 
filtration efficiency of the air purifier and its airflow to clean the 
air quickly and effectively from pollutants. Blueair further explained 
many products on the market offer a high filtration percentage (i.e., 
``a single pass filtration efficiency''), but only produce a small 
volume of clean air and thus are slow to cycle through a room's air.
    Blueair, however, opposed including energy costs on labels unless 
``accuracy could be assured.'' It explained the test conditions behind 
such an estimate may involve unrealistic conditions (e.g., ``running 
products at their highest levels for a period of time'') and may 
produce ``elevated cost estimates'' inconsistent with actual operation.
    Finally, one commenter addressed the label's location and content. 
Specifically, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
(``AHAM'') recommended the Commission require manufacturers to display 
a new air cleaner label on boxes via a QR code and provided a sample 
label containing disclosures for annual energy cost, room size, and 
Integrated Energy Factor.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Madison IAQ argued the label should not apply to Incidental 
Air Cleaning products, which include products that meet DOE's ``air 
cleaner'' definition but provide an additional function unrelated to 
air purification, such as a vacuum cleaner, fresh air ventilators, 
range hood (ducted or non-ducted), refrigerator, or desiccant 
dehumidifier, and whose air purification function is incidental to 
its other functions. The Commission notes that DOE has stated `` 
`incidental air cleaning products' do not meet the definition of an 
air cleaner as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.'' 88 FR 14014, 14018 (Mar. 
6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring EnergyGuide labeling 
for air cleaners. Recent DOE analysis demonstrates significant 
variability in the energy use of various air cleaner models.\20\ 
Therefore, as discussed above, labeling should assist consumers in 
their purchasing decisions by allowing them to choose among competing 
models with a range of energy costs. In addition, such labeling does 
not appear to raise unique or difficult implementation issues compared 
to other products already labeled under the Rule, and, therefore, 
should be economically and technologically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ``2023-03 Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency 
Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Air Cleaners, March 
2023,'' Chapter 3, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments require manufactures to affix an 
EnergyGuide label on air cleaner packages because retailers typically 
display these products in boxes. The proposed label displays yearly 
energy costs as the primary disclosure. The label also includes 
secondary disclosures, which the Commission has determined will assist 
consumers in making purchasing decisions or in using such products, and 
will not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers.\21\ Specifically, the 
label includes a yearly energy cost range for the recommended room 
size, CADR, and IEF. The recommended room size is based on categories 
DOE applies in their regulations: small (15-154 sq. ft.), medium (155-
235 sq. ft.), and large (236 and greater sq. ft.) room sizes.\22\ The 
proposed label also includes the following explanatory text: ``The 
Clean Air Delivery Rate is based on the removal of particulate matter 
that is 2.5 micrometers wide or smaller (PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR).'' 
Additionally, the label includes a tertiary disclosure, the model's 
efficiency rating (the IEF), which should help consumers understand the 
product's energy use. These secondary and tertiary disclosures help 
consumers identify models with the appropriate capacity for their needs 
and facilitates an apples-to-apples comparison of the energy costs of 
relevant models. Manufacturers should not face any undue burden in 
disclosing this additional information because this type of information 
(e.g., efficiency ratings) is readily available from DOE-mandated test 
results, and manufacturers already include such information on most 
EnergyGuide labels for other products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
    \22\ 88 FR 21752, 21766 (April 11, 2023) (conservation 
standards); 88 FR 14014, 14036-14037 (Mar. 6, 2023) (test 
procedure); 10 CFR parts 429 and 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this proposed Rule and consistent with EPCA's requirements, 
manufacturers must use the new DOE test procedure to generate 
information on the label. In issuing its test procedure, DOE has 
resolved or addressed the various commenter issues concerning 
testing.\23\ Given DOE's expertise in setting such procedures, the 
Commission defers to its conclusions. In addition, the Commission will 
set a labeling compliance date consistent with DOE's Tier 2 standards 
requirements (Dec. 31, 2025), as suggested by the Joint Commenters. 
This date will provide the FTC an opportunity to gather and publish 
range information for the new label based on reporting to DOE or other 
available sources prior to the compliance date, and otherwise provide 
the time necessary for manufacturers to create and incorporate the new 
labels on packaging. Consistent with DOE requirements, the proposed 
reporting date for these products is December 1 of each year. The 
Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal. Among other 
things, commenters should address the content, placement, and timing 
for the new label, as well as any other relevant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

C. Clothes Dryers

    Background: EPCA designates clothes dryers as covered products in 
42 U.S.C. 6292. In 1979, however, the Commission declined to require 
labels for these products after finding competing models on the market 
had a limited range of energy use.\24\ In 2014, the Commission 
reconsidered that decision, and again concluded

[[Page 7569]]

efficiency varied little across available models.\25\ Although the 
Commission recognized emerging heat pump models used less energy than 
conventional dryers, few, if any, such models were available in the 
U.S. at the time. Now, however, heat pump models appear to be more 
prevalent in the U.S. market. The ANPR, for example, noted the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') ENERGY STAR website 
(www.energy.gov) lists about two dozen heat pump models as qualifying 
under that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 44 FR at 66469. Under EPCA, the Commission must prescribe 
labels for dryers unless it finds labeling would not be 
technologically or economically feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1). When 
it promulgated the Rule in 1979, the Commission, after examining the 
statute and statutory history, concluded ``that Congress[`s] intent 
was to permit the exclusion of any product category, if the 
Commission found that the costs of the labeling program would 
substantially outweigh any potential benefits to consumers.'' 44 FR 
at 66467-68.
    \25\ 79 FR 34642, 34659 (June 18, 2014); 80 FR 67285, 67296 
(Nov. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters split on whether consumers would benefit from 
an EnergyGuide label for clothes dryers. Some opponents of a label 
asserted it would provide limited benefit to consumers because there is 
little variation in energy use among models. Specifically, AHAM and 
Whirlpool contended available DOE data suggests most models largely 
cluster into three groups: (1) those just meeting current DOE standard 
levels, (2) those meeting the ENERGY STAR Clothes Dryer Version 1.1 
specification levels, and (3) those qualified for ENERGY STAR 2023 
``Most Efficient'' designation. According to AHAM data, only three 
percent of shipments and nine percent of electric standard dryer models 
fall between the DOE energy conservation standard (group 1) and the 
ENERGY STAR level (group 2). Further, only two percent of shipments 
outperform the ENERGY STAR (group 3). In short, AHAM asserts available 
models largely fall into ``two clumps--either ENERGY STAR or not.'' 
Thus, ENERGY STAR designations already provide the information needed 
to make informed purchasing decisions. Whirlpool added the FTC cannot 
demonstrate this variation is great enough to assist consumers in their 
purchase decisions, and that labeling benefits outweigh the burden 
associated with manufacturers developing and applying labels.
    Other commenters disagreed. The California IOUs, for example, 
supported ``a label that can easily differentiate the annual operating 
costs between products.'' It recommended the label include energy costs 
as the primary disclosure, and a list of the underlying assumptions 
used to calculate such information, including clothes drying cycles 
(per week), utility prices, and test load sizes. In addition, 
Earthjustice asserted, dryer labels ``may deliver the greatest 
aggregate consumer benefits.'' Citing EPCA's labeling provisions and 
past FTC consideration of the issue, it argued, because ``FTC has not 
found--nor could it find--that labeling clothes dryers would not be 
technologically or economically feasible, labels are required.'' 
Moreover, Earthjustice argued the past FTC concerns over multiple DOE 
test procedures are no longer a barrier to labeling.\26\ Finally, 
according to Earthjustice, energy efficiency advances have led to 
significant energy use variation among current clothes dryer models 
since the FTC last examined the issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See 80 FR at 67296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electrolux, a manufacturer of clothes dryers, also expressed 
support for a dryer label, provided manufacturers have at least a year 
to comply. The company noted that, while vented dryers still account 
for about ninety percent of models, other options are steadily 
increasing. According to Electrolux, these newer products, which use 
emerging technologies found in heat pump and condensing models, use 
less energy, though with some increase in drying time. Further, even 
for traditional vented dryers, the variation between the least and most 
efficient models continues to widen. In the absence of an EnergyGuide 
label for these products, Electrolux explained, consumers have 
difficulty making informed decisions about the true costs and benefits 
of the new technology. Electrolux additionally explained manufacturers 
typically represent the DOE minimum or ENERGY STAR minimum dryer energy 
levels in marketing because without a requirement to disclose detailed, 
point-of-sale energy information, little incentive exists to do 
otherwise. In Electrolux's opinion, an energy label would encourage 
more accurate disclosures. Electrolux provided sample labels featuring 
the Combined Energy Factor (``CEF'') \27\ as the primary display 
because it ``is the standard metric of the official energy test 
procedure and used by the DOE to regulate the dryer energy.'' Finally, 
Electrolux stated labeling will add ``significant cost burden,'' which 
could be mitigated by using paperless labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ CEF is the metric adopted by DOE to measure the energy 
efficiency of clothes dryers. 76 FR 972-01, 976 (Jan. 6, 2011). CEF 
is calculated by dividing the weight of the test load (lbs.) by the 
sum of the electric energy used by the dryer during both standby and 
drying cycles (kWh). See 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. D1 at Sec. 
4.7 and App. D2 at Sec. 4.7; see also Clothes Dryers Key Product 
Criteria, Energy Star, https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_dryers/key_product_criteria (last visited July 
14, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California IOUs recommended the dryer label include information 
about clothing samples used in the test in addition to the test load 
size to ensure consumers understand the testing conditions. They also 
urged that the label include the dryer cycle time from a reputable 
source such as the ENERGY STAR program because that information is 
important to some consumers. Additionally, they recommended the label 
contain two ranges, one for the model class (e.g., vented or ventless) 
based on similar features, and another combining all model classes.
    Finally, the California IOUs explained the DOE test procedure for 
automatic termination control dryers requires re-running the test using 
the highest dryness level setting if the final moisture content 
(``FMC'') from the first test cycle using a default, ``normal,'' or 
``medium'' dryness level setting is greater than two percent. These 
commenters noted that identifying which dryness setting the test 
employed would provide consumers useful information.
    Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring an EnergyGuide label 
for dryers. Previously, a lack of variation in energy use among similar 
dryers limited a label's benefit. However, as commenters indicated, the 
market has changed and will likely continue to change as the number of 
high-efficiency models steadily increases. For example, recent ENERGY 
STAR data lists about 500 standard-size models qualifying for ENERGY 
STAR. These models ranged in energy cost from about $30 to $96/year 
with multiple variations within that band.\28\ As noted by the 
commenters, many models currently clump into three categories of energy 
use. However, in the absence of an EnergyGuide label with specific 
energy cost estimates, consumers cannot easily gauge the different 
energy savings yielded by models falling within the same category. 
Moreover, given the progress of energy efficient technology, the 
utility of a label will likely increase more in the near future. 
Finally, the costs associated with labeling these products should be 
similar to those associated with labeling other showroom products such 
as refrigerators. The Commission has already determined those costs are 
not overly burdensome. Accordingly, consistent with the Commission's 
interpretation of the applicable EPCA threshold, no evidence 
demonstrates the costs of labeling dryers would ``substantially 
outweigh any potential

[[Page 7570]]

benefits to consumers.'' 44 FR at 66467-68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Calculated at $0.14/kWh. Out of these ENERGY STAR models, 
approximately 150 have an estimated yearly cost of approximately 
$95,300 are at approximately $85, 10 at approximately $75, 3 at $64, 
and 7 between about $30 and $40. For the most current ENERGY STAR 
data, see https://www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-clothes-dryers/results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with labels for similar appliances, the proposed dryer 
label features annual energy costs as the primary disclosure derived 
from the DOE test procedure, with a secondary CEF disclosure. The CEF 
metric provides consumers with a second way to understand energy use by 
disclosing a rating derived from measuring the energy needed to dry a 
specific test load, thus augmenting the label's primary yearly energy 
cost disclosure. The proposal also divides ranges into standard (4.4 
cu. ft. or greater) and compact (smaller than 4.4 cu. ft.) size 
categories, reflecting the DOE size categories for these products. 
Consistent with similarly-fueled products such as water heaters, the 
proposed Rule also contains separate ranges for gas dryers and electric 
dryers because most consumers are likely to be in the market for one or 
the other and do not comparison shop between those model types.
    Finally, consistent with labels for other products and to provide 
consumers with the basic assumptions behind the label's estimate, the 
proposed label includes a statement explaining the duty cycle (i.e., 
the typical yearly usage) underlying the label calculations (i.e., 
``approximately 5 loads per week'' based on the DOE requirement of 236 
per year).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission also proposes to begin requiring the label when 
DOE's new test procedure (``Appendix D2'') becomes applicable to all 
dryers, to ensure consistency across all labeled products.\30\ DOE 
requirements currently allow manufacturers to use one of two different 
test procedures--Appendix D1 or Appendix D2. By waiting until the test 
in Appendix D2 applies to all units, the FTC will ensure consistent 
information on the label from a single test. Once applicable data is 
available, the Commission proposes to publish ranges and provide 
manufacturers six months to begin labeling their products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix D2. DOE proposed 
the required use of Appendix D2 for any future amended energy 
conservation standards in a 2022 proposed rule. 87 FR 51734, 51809 
(Aug. 23, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission, however, does not propose adding additional 
information to the label regarding clothing samples, cycle time, and 
models that require two cycles under the DOE test procedure. Such 
information will crowd the label and may confuse consumers. In 
addition, the results of the DOE test already reflect the significant 
costs associated with those models requiring two cycles under the DOE 
test procedure.
    The Commission seeks comment on whether it should have separate 
range categories for vented and ventless models. Specifically, 
commenters should address whether consumers are likely to compare 
models with such features when shopping. Commenters should also address 
whether an annual energy use number as the secondary disclosure would 
be more useful to consumers in lieu of the CEF.

D. Miscellaneous Refrigerator Products

    Background: DOE has designated miscellaneous refrigerators 
(``MREFs'') as covered products under EPCA. This category includes 
coolers (e.g., wine chillers) and combination cooler refrigeration 
products (i.e., products with warm and cool compartments). Within the 
category, some similarly-sized models exhibit a significant range of 
energy use. For example, recent DOE data shows freestanding compact 
cooler models (those between 3 and 7 cubic feet) use between 100 to 205 
kWh/yr.\31\ Moreover, DOE currently has test procedures and standards 
for these products.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See DOE Compliance Certification Management System, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \32\ Pursuant 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3), the Commission has authority 
to require labels on MREFs that DOE designates as covered products 
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). DOE issued final test procedures and 
standards for MREFs in 2016. See 10 CFR parts 429 and 430; 81 FR 
46768 (July 18, 2016) (test procedure); 81 FR 75194 (Oct. 28, 2016) 
(standards); see also 79 FR 78736, 78737 (Dec. 31, 2014) (FTC 
request for comments following proposed DOE test procedure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters addressing MREFs generally supported or did 
not oppose labeling these products. For example, Earthjustice noted DOE 
has found significant variation in the performance of currently 
available models. Specifically, models for the most common type--
freestanding compact coolers with similar capacities--range from ``200 
kilowatt hours per year down to half that amount.'' AHAM, which did not 
oppose labeling, agreed MREF labels would assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.
    Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring labels for 
miscellaneous refrigerators. As discussed above, evidence suggests 
labeling will aid consumers in their purchasing decisions. In addition, 
no evidence suggests MREF labeling would be economically and 
technologically infeasible. The proposed label is consistent with the 
freezer label (i.e., yearly energy costs, a single range, and a 
secondary disclosure of annual energy use). The Commission proposes a 
single table of ranges based on several capacity categories. The MREF 
proposal also adopts the placement requirements for refrigerators and 
freezers. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on an appropriate 
compliance date for the new labels.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Commenter Wesolowski asked whether the label would cover 
the type of powered cooler meant to be plugged into a vehicle. The 
proposal only covers products included in DOE's standards program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks information on whether a typical consumer 
shopping for such products is likely to consider both ``built-in'' and 
``freestanding'' models, and if so whether the proposed categories 
should be combined.

E. Portable Electric Spas

    Background: The Commission's ANPR sought comment on labeling for 
portable electric spas (e.g., hot tubs). In February 2022, DOE 
published a tentative determination that portable electric spas qualify 
as a covered product under EPCA and followed with a final coverage 
determination in September 2022.\34\ DOE estimated more than 3 million 
households in the U.S. operate portable electric spas regularly, using 
an estimated energy consumption of 1,699 kWh/yr per household 
(approximately $238 per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comments: Commenters addressing portable electric spas generally 
supported labeling these products. The California IOUs, for example, 
noted that, unlike many showroom appliances, electric spas currently do 
not fall under the ENERGY STAR program, which makes identification of 
the most efficient spas ``more challenging when shopping online or on 
the showroom floor.''
    Most commenters focused on the timing of potential labels in light 
of ongoing DOE regulatory efforts. For example, Rheem, the Pool & Hot 
Tub Alliance (``PHTA''), the International Hot Tub Association 
(``IHTA''), and the California IOUs recommended the Commission require 
labels after DOE finalizes its coverage determination, test procedures, 
and standards. According to PHTA and IHTA, industry members will need 
an opportunity to examine the final DOE test procedure before providing 
``fully-informed'' comments on label content such as energy costs, 
consumption, and efficiency.
    With regard to label placement, PHTA and IHTA recommended the Rule 
follow industry standard ``APSP-14 Section 7,'' which states: ``The spa 
shall be marked by the manufacturer . . .

[[Page 7571]]

where readily visible on the shell or front skirt panel of a spa, or 
the container of the inflatable spa during the point of sale.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ According to the California IOUs, portable electric spas 
sold in California after June 2019 must bear a consumer-facing label 
displaying the spa's average standby power usage. Cal. Code Regs. 
tit. 20, Sec. 1602 and 1607. These commenters urge FTC to use it as 
the basis for a national spa label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California IOUs provided several content suggestions. First, 
they recommended a five-star rating system. Noting FTC's past decision 
to reject such a system, based in part over potential confusion between 
a five-star rating system and ENERGY STAR disclosures, they argued such 
considerations would not apply to spas because of their absence from 
the ENERGY STAR program. They also recommended the FTC sort spas by 
volume to ensure the labels' ranges compare similarly-sized models. 
Finally, they suggested the label prominently feature the tested 
ambient temperature ``so consumers can easily discern the difference 
between the tested temperature and their climate conditions.''
    Discussion: The Commission proposes requiring EnergyGuide labels 
for portable electric spas. Available information suggests labeling for 
these products would assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. 
For example, DOE has found that ratings of certified portable electric 
spas in data collected by the California Energy Commission 
``demonstrate significant variation in the total power consumption 
among different models of standard, combination, and exercise spas that 
are currently available.'' \36\ Additionally, no available information 
suggests labeling will pose burdens significantly outweighing the 
benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As with most other labeled products, the proposed label's content 
reflects the information generated by the DOE test procedure.\37\ DOE 
published its final rule establishing its test procedure on June 13, 
2023.\38\ As several commenters noted, this procedure only measures 
standby heating costs for spas, not other operating costs (e.g., water 
circulation, lights, etc.). However, because standby heating costs 
account for the large majority of the product's energy use, the 
Commission finds the usage numbers produced by the DOE procedure will 
be beneficial to consumers. To ensure consumers understand this 
limitation, the bottom of the proposed label states: ``The cost 
estimate reflects only the heating cost of this model and does not 
include other aspects of operation such as water circulation, 
filtration, or lights.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ According to analysis cited by DOE, the mode of operation 
measured in the test procedure represents approximately 75 percent 
of the energy consumed by a portable electric spa and as high as 95 
percent in some cases. 87 FR 63356, 63361 (Oct. 18, 2022).
    \38\ 88 FR 38600 (June 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, consistent with the DOE test, a model's ``estimated 
yearly heating cost'' would serve as the label's primary disclosure and 
reflect the estimated cost associated with continuous standby heating 
throughout the year. Specifically, the standard cost information on the 
bottom of the proposed label states: ``This label's heating cost 
estimate is based on continuous heating throughout the year and a 
national average electricity cost of [__] cents per kWh.'' The proposed 
label also contains a smaller, secondary disclosure stating ``Energy 
Used'' in watts to assist consumers who are interested in comparing the 
respective watts used by the hot tub on standby and by other energy-
consuming products in their home. Finally, the proposed Rule requires 
disclosures of ``fill volume'' to provide a key underlying metric 
behind the energy use disclosure.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ As the California IOUs indicated, the Commission considered 
and declined to adopt a five-star labeling system for reasons fully 
explained in an earlier proceeding. See 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007). 
The Commission declines to revisit those issues here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission seeks comments on whether the Rule should require 
such a capacity disclosure and, if so, whether ``fill volume'' is an 
appropriate metric. In addition, given the marked difference in the 
size and functionality of spas, the Commission requests commenters to 
address whether the Rule should contain separate range categories for 
spas, separated by capacity and/or spa type (e.g., standard and 
exercise spas). The Commission also seeks information on the 
appropriate placement for the label (e.g., on the product itself, on 
packaging, or included inside the packaging, etc.), whether these 
products are typically displayed in retail brick-and-mortar stores, 
and, if so, whether they are displayed outside of packaging. Finally, 
commenters should address whether retailers should have a role in 
displaying the spa label, similar to the proposal in this document for 
appliances (see Section V infra).

F. Residential Ice Makers

    Background: Consumers can purchase residential icemakers in various 
configurations, including portable, non-portable, and uncooled storage. 
DOE research has found residential ice makers consume a significant 
amount of energy, and that there are significant energy use differences 
both across and within these configurations.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Preliminary Technical Support Document EERE-2011-BT-
STD-0043-0024, Section 7.2.3 and Table 7.2.4, DOE, https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0043-0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters specifically addressing residential ice makers 
opposed labeling for these products.\41\ According to AHAM and 
Whirlpool, the DOE commercial test procedure is not appropriate for 
residential models. According to these commenters, the residential 
models, in contrast to commercial models, generally have lower 
capacity, are stand-alone, and are used infrequently in low volumes. 
Further, according to Whirlpool, little data exists, either from DOE or 
manufacturers, to compare the energy efficiency of residential ice 
maker models, even using the automatic commercial ice maker test 
procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Some commenters (e.g., California IOUs) generally supported 
labeling for new product categories, like residential ice makers, 
without further elaboration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, in the DOE proceeding, AHAM opposed DOE's four-pound-per-
day usage metric, arguing reliance on the number would mislead 
consumers because no data supported the assumption behind it. Instead, 
AHAM urged DOE to study average daily ice use for the residential 
products and use those assumptions to determine whether standards are 
justified under EPCA.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ AHAM further argued that, since DOE has designated all ice 
makers, including residential icemakers, producing less than 50 
pounds per day as ``commercial'' products, such products fall 
outside of the FTC's authority to require labels only for ``consumer 
products'' under EPCA. See 87 FR 65856 (Nov. 1, 2022); 42 U.S.C. 
6291(1); 42 U.S.C. 6294(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not propose a label for residential 
ice makers at this time. Given the uncertainties regarding energy use, 
the absence of a test procedure specifically tailored to residential 
(consumer) models, and ongoing concerns expressed by commenters about 
the applicability of the commercial test to residential models, the 
Commission will continue to monitor developments related to these 
products and revisit the issue if warranted.

G. Humidifiers

    Background: Consumers use residential humidifiers either to 
increase or maintain the humidity levels in all or parts of the home or 
to ease illness symptoms.\43\ There are currently no DOE or EPA ENERGY 
STAR

[[Page 7572]]

standards or test procedures for these products. However, a 2012 ENERGY 
STAR report found there were differences in energy consumption among 
competing humidifiers, particularly for whole-house models.\44\ The 
report also stated there was ``very little, if any, correlation between 
humidification capacity (in square feet) and watt rating.'' The report 
concluded consumers could collectively save an estimated 3.4 terawatts 
of electricity over the lifetime of these products by choosing energy-
efficient humidifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) (general labeling authority). For 
dehumidifiers, EPCA contains a specific prohibition for an ``Energy 
Guide'' label requirement. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5)(C).
    \44\ ENERGY STAR Market & Industry Scoping Report: Residential 
Humidifiers (Oct. 2012), available at https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/asset/document/ENERGY_STAR_Scoping_Report_Residential_Humidifiers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: The two commenters addressing this product in detail 
opposed labeling. Specifically, AHRI and AHAM argued labeling was not 
appropriate due to the lack of DOE (or industry) test procedures or 
standards, and the lack of evidence labeling would aid consumers.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ AHAM argued that 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(3)(B) prohibits labeling 
for these products unless there is a DOE test procedure. However, 
that provision applies only to products DOE has designated as a 
covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20). DOE has made no 
such a designation for humidifiers. The Commission has separate 
authority under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6) to ``require labeling or other 
disclosures in accordance with this subsection for any consumer 
product not specified in this subsection or section 6292 of this 
title if the Commission determines that labeling for the product is 
likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI disagreed with conclusions in the 2012 ENERGY STAR report. It 
attributed EPA's findings to ``a lack of understanding of adiabatic and 
steam product operation.'' In contrast to the report, AHRI argued that 
the energy input for the two primary types of systems--steam and 
adiabatic--are ``quite comparable,'' and observed little variability in 
the energy input between current brands/models.\46\ Finally, no 
commenter identified a separate test procedure suitable for humidifier 
labeling or otherwise provided specific support for labeling these 
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ AHAM's comment provided a detailed discussion of technical 
issues related to energy input for steam and adiabatic models. It 
explained the lack of variation among models stems from the fact 
that the energy required to change water to humidifying mist is 
comparable for both types of models and that this energy accounts 
for most of a humidifier's energy consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not now propose requiring labeling 
for humidifiers. Doing so would be premature in the absence of a DOE 
test procedure or a suitable substitute. The Commission acknowledges 
the inconsistencies between the industry comments and the 2012 EPA 
report regarding relative energy use. However, in the absence of an 
applicable test procedure, there is no need to now address this issue 
further. The Commission will continue to monitor developments related 
to potential labeling for these products.

H. Miscellaneous Gas Products

    Background: In February 2022, DOE tentatively determined 
miscellaneous gas products, such as decorative hearths and outdoor 
heaters, qualify as covered products under EPCA.\47\ These products 
include fireplaces, fire pits, and similar products that have 
decorative purposes but can also provide heat. DOE proposed defining 
``decorative hearth product'' as gas-fired appliances that simulate a 
solid-fueled fireplace or present a flame pattern. DOE's proposed 
definition includes products: (1) designed for indoor and/or outdoor 
use; (2) not designed to be operated with a thermostat; (3) not 
designed to provide space heating to the indoor space in which they are 
installed; and (4) not designed to provide heat proximate to the unit. 
DOE estimates suggest these products can generate substantial energy 
costs for consumers.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 87 FR 6786 (Feb. 7, 2022).
    \48\ See 87 FR at 6792. DOE also discussed these general issues 
in 2013. 78 FR 79638, 79640 (Dec. 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters specifically addressing miscellaneous gas 
products generally opposed labeling requirements, arguing any such 
requirements are premature given ongoing work related to defining 
categories, establishing test procedures, and setting standards. For 
example, AHRI stated the ``product class is vast, varied, and only 
recently covered by DOE.'' Further, the test procedure development 
process has not begun. AHRI also discussed the broad array of products 
in this category and identified industry test procedures, some of which 
do not contain provisions for efficiency metrics.\49\ Similarly, 
several natural gas industry organizations (the ``Group'') argued 
because DOE has not completed its work on establishing efficiency 
levels and test procedures for several of these products, a labeling 
rule would be premature and could risk ``communicating incomplete or 
inaccurate information to a consumer.'' The Group also noted the DOE 
coverage determination for these products is currently undergoing a 
legal challenge, which could alter their status under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ In its comments, AHRI discussed vented decorative gas 
appliances, various gas fireplace appliances, outdoor decorative gas 
appliances, covering gas pits, fire tables, and gas-fired outdoor 
infrared patio heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to these DOE-related concerns, TIC Council cautioned an 
EnergyGuide label may suggest these products are energy-efficient.\50\ 
Finally, AHRI argued, given the variety and different uses of these 
products, ``it is very difficult to envision a label that would help 
inform consumers.'' Specifically, according to AHRI, some products are 
sold by contractors and many as part of new home construction, where 
consumers are unlikely to see the labels prior to purchase. AHRI also 
suggested the label would be obtrusive and detract from a product's 
decorative nature, particularly outdoor products such as patio heaters 
``that are integral to the ambience.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Without further elaboration, commenter Merriam suggested 
adding space heaters in addition to the Miscellaneous gas products 
(``Hearth Products'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission does not now propose labeling 
requirements for miscellaneous gas products. Given the array of product 
types and the early stages of DOE test procedure promulgation, the 
Commission will continue to follow developments for this product 
category and, if appropriate, address potential labeling at a future 
date.

I. Cooking Tops

    Background: EPCA lists ``kitchen ranges and ovens'' as covered 
products.\51\ In 1979, the Commission decided not to require labels for 
cooking tops, as well as ranges and ovens, because of the small 
variability of energy use between models.\52\ Recent DOE research, 
however, found energy consumption for gas cooking top models now may 
vary significantly depending on burner and grate design. DOE also noted 
energy consumption among similar electric cooking top models can vary 
depending on whether the product employs induction or resistance 
heating or has smooth or coil elements.\53\ While DOE withdrew its test 
procedure for these products in August 2020,\54\ in 2022, DOE 
reestablished a test procedure for conventional cooking tops.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(10).
    \52\ 44 FR 66466, 66469 (Nov. 19, 1979) (``Since the substantial 
costs of a labeling requirement would not produce corresponding 
consumer benefits, the Commission has determined that labeling of 
kitchen ranges and ovens would not be economically feasible.'').
    \53\ 81 FR 60784, 60800-02 (Sept. 2, 2016).
    \54\ 85 FR 50757 (Aug. 18, 2020).
    \55\ See 87 FR 51492 (Aug. 22, 2022)); 86 FR 60974 (Nov. 4, 
2021) (results of round robin testing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 7573]]

Specifically, this group urged the Commission to include on the label 
the cooktop's duty cycle using the DOE test procedure (418 kWh/yr at 31 
minutes per cycle) in a way that helps consumers relate these use 
assumptions to their personal use.
    Most commenters addressing this issue, however, opposed labeling, 
raising various questions about the viability of labeling these 
products.\56\ For example, AHAM and Whirlpool argued EnergyGuide labels 
for gas cooking products are premature because stakeholders have 
identified several outstanding concerns with the recently finalized 
test procedures. Specifically, they asserted the DOE test procedure is 
``highly variable'' (i.e., raises repeatability and reproducibility 
concerns) and thus may not ``provide a `good basis' for consumers to 
compare cooktops.'' In addition, AHAM and Whirlpool noted, because the 
DOE procedure is new, limited data is available from which to determine 
whether an adequate differentiation among products exists to warrant 
labeling. Based on its initial review, AHAM stated there may be little 
difference in energy use among the products but is working to collect 
data to further evaluate test results. Whirlpool added that DOE's 
testing does not provide information about the efficiency of a broad 
range of representative models in the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Natural gas industry organizations (the ``Group'') raised 
similar concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHAM also asserted conducting DOE's current test is unduly 
burdensome, and thus labeling would not be economically feasible. 
Further, because there is no test procedure for ovens, AHAM suggested 
labels applied only to cooktops (which are often attached to ovens) 
will confuse consumers. Finally, AHAM asserts conflicts with Canadian 
test procedures could cause further confusion; and therefore, the FTC 
should wait ``until such time as the two countries harmonize their 
requirements.''
    Discussion: At this time, the Commission has insufficient 
information to change its previous determination. Specifically, given 
the absence of data demonstrating variability of energy use among 
competing products, the Commission will continue to follow developments 
for this product category and, if appropriate, address labeling at a 
future date.

J. Additional Lamps (Light Bulbs)

    Background: The Rule's Lighting Facts label currently covers an 
array of lamp (i.e., light bulb) types and allows manufacturers to use 
the label on lamp products not covered by the Rule. The Rule 
specifically covers general purpose and specialty consumer lamps used 
in typical household applications, and excludes products where labeling 
is unlikely to provide substantial benefit. In the ANPR, the Commission 
sought comment on whether to cover lamp types not currently specified 
in the Rule, particularly 25-watt incandescent bulbs and full color 
``tunable'' lamps with adjustable color.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ In the past, the Commission has looked beyond DOE's 
specific lamp definitions, which generally cover products subject to 
DOE's efficiency standards, to include products designated as 
``specialty consumer lamps'' using its general labeling authority at 
42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6). 80 FR 67285 (Nov. 2, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters specifically addressing lamp labeling opposed 
expanding existing requirements. Specifically, the National Electrical 
Manufacturers Association (``NEMA'') asserted these lamp types (e.g., 
25-watt incandescent and lower) are often used in commercial 
applications where their use varies significantly from typical 
household lamps and are not typically purchased by consumers as direct 
replacements for ordinary light bulbs.\58\ In addition, they contend 
that ``tunable'' adjustable-color lamps provide benefits beyond those 
of general service lamps, so their application and use are not 
comparable to that of labeled lamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ NEMA expressed support for the existing label's coverage, 
identifying the label as an example of ``how consistent labeling can 
support a market change'' and noting its widely recognizable format 
``strikes an optimal balance of information provided and 
accommodations of the physical constraints.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: Commenters did not identify a compelling reason to 
expand the existing coverage of the lamp label. The label already 
covers most consumer lamps, and the Commission lacks evidence that 
expansion to include narrow categories would generate significant 
benefits. Moreover, using assumptions applicable to most residential 
bulbs to label commercial lamps could lead to consumer confusion and 
outright deception. Therefore, at this time, the Commission does not 
propose expanding the Rule's scope to cover additional types of lamps.

V. Issues Relating to Existing Products

    Several comments raised issues about products already labeled under 
the Rule. These included proposals to (1) change the clothes washer 
label content, (2) include handwashing information on the dishwasher 
label, (3) eliminate range information on television labels, and (4) 
improve the Rule's provisions for water heaters, pool heaters, and 
boilers.

A. Clothes Washer Labels

    Background and Comments: Two commenters recommended changing the 
clothes washer label to include information about a model's ability to 
reduce moisture (e.g., the final moisture content (``FMC'') of the 
washed load) and thus ultimately use less energy. According to these 
commenters, the absence of this information misleads consumers 
regarding the true energy cost of washing clothes because more moisture 
at the end of the cycle means the dryer requires more energy. The 
California IOUs, which argued for incorporating drying energy costs 
into the current yearly energy cost estimate, provided data 
demonstrating significant differences in FMC among washers, ranging 
from about 31 to 51 percent. Their analysis showed these differences 
caused corresponding substantial variations in estimated yearly energy 
costs after factoring in drying energy.
    Similarly, Electrolux commented the current label's annual energy 
consumption (``AEC''), i.e., yearly energy use in kWh disclosure does 
not properly assist consumers because it is missing the ``largest 
component of energy efficiency for washers, the energy to dry the 
remaining moisture left in the washer load.'' According to Electrolux, 
the ability to remove moisture varies significantly among models for 
different classes, sizes, and brands.
    To address these concerns, Electrolux proposed a modified label 
displaying the DOE standard for clothes washers using an Integrated 
Modified Energy Factor (``IMEF''), a metric which accounts for energy 
needed to remove remaining moisture.\59\ It further recommended 
displaying an accompanying range showing the best and least efficient 
washer range for IMEF across all washers and classes. According to 
Electrolux, because the DOE standard accounts for drying energy, it 
provides a more accurate way to compare washer models than AEC, which 
only accounts for washer energy. Under its proposal, the label would 
display AEC as a secondary disclosure. Alternatively, Electrolux 
suggested including annual drying cost into the washer's energy cost 
disclosure, using a

[[Page 7574]]

different cost metric such as ``Effective Energy Cost'' to avoid 
confusion.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The Integrated Modified Energy Factor measures the energy 
efficiency of a clothes washer as the quotient of the capacity of 
the clothes container divided by the total clothes washer energy 
consumption per cycle, which includes ``the energy required for 
removal of the remaining moisture in the wash load.'' 10 CFR Pt. 
430, Subpt. B, App. J2.
    \60\ The California IOUs also recommended the inclusion of a 
model's cycle time on the label ``when this data becomes available 
from a reputable source'' because it is an essential consideration 
for some consumers. According to the commenters, DOE's May 2022 test 
procedure provides this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The inclusion of information reflecting a washer's 
ability to reduce moisture content could help consumers with their 
purchasing decisions. However, it is unclear whether consumers would 
understand the IMEF disclosure, including its relation to moisture 
content.\61\ In addition, relegating the annual energy cost estimate to 
a secondary disclosure could undermine the effectiveness of that 
disclosure. Therefore, the Commission declines to include IMEF on the 
washer label at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ In addition to the IMEF, the DOE standard cited in 
Electrolux's proposal also measures the Integrated Water Factor 
(``IWF''), which represents the total weighted per-cycle water 
consumption for all wash cycles in gallons for each cubic foot (or 
liter) of clothes washer capacity. 10 CFR Pt. 430, Subpt. B, App. 
J2. Like Electrolux's proposed IMEF disclosure, it is unclear 
whether consumers would understand an IWF disclosure or use it when 
making purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, given the issues raised by the comments, the 
Commission seeks further comment on whether the Rule should require a 
disclosure for the additional cost of removing moisture from clothes 
and other related information, and, if so, how manufacturers should 
calculate this information and how the EnergyGuide label should present 
such information in a helpful and not confusing way. For example, 
manufacturers could derive annual energy cost estimates for moisture 
removal by multiplying the number of wash cycles per year by the per 
cycle energy consumption for removal of moisture from the test load. 
Alternatively, DOE could consider amending its test procedure to 
specify the means for generating this information.

B. Dishwashers

    Background and Comments: The California IOUs recommended including 
information about the costs of handwashing on the dishwasher label. 
Specifically, according to these commenters, handwashing dishes uses 
substantially more energy and water than an ENERGY STAR-rated 
dishwasher. They also recommended the label include a dishwasher's 
cycle time using DOE test results, given its importance to consumers.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose amending the dishwasher 
label to reflect handwashing costs. The California IOUs have not 
identified relevant data demonstrating that dishwasher shoppers want to 
compare the cost of handwashing to the machine's operating cost, and 
the FTC is unaware of any such data. In the absence of such data, the 
FTC concludes that the disclosure is unlikely to be helpful to most 
consumers. Further, the additional information would likely clutter the 
label, and thus, may detract from its effectiveness. The disclosure 
also could confuse consumers who may think the label's handwashing 
costs are associated with the model's operation. Balancing these 
considerations, a specific dishwasher disclosure is not warranted. 
However, sellers may present information about handwashing through 
consumer education materials separate from the label.
    Similarly, the Commission does not propose including a dishwasher's 
cycle time on the label. Although this information, like many other 
metrics related to the product (e.g., dimensions), may be useful for 
consumers, it is not clear it is needed to help consumers understand 
the energy label. Moreover, manufacturers can provide this information 
through technical specifications in manuals and marketing materials.

C. Television Ranges

    Background and Comments: CTA, an association representing 
television manufacturers, urged the Commission to eliminate 
comparability ranges for television labels, ``in light of changing 
technology and online availability of information to consumers.'' 
Noting FTC's discretion under EPCA to exclude ranges from television 
labels, CTA argued the ranges are not helpful to consumers for three 
reasons. First, given rapid changes to available models driven in part 
by constantly evolving technology, attempts to estimate ranges are 
futile ``because the data becomes quickly outdated almost as soon as it 
is set.'' Second, CTA stated well-established resources exist for 
product comparisons, including consumer and trade publications and 
product reviews. Third, consumers can already make energy use 
comparisons based on the most significant element of the EnergyGuide 
label, the estimated yearly energy cost.
    Discussion: Comparability ranges for televisions, while not 
mandatory under EPCA,\62\ make it easier to compare a particular 
model's operating cost relative to others available in the market, and 
to see where that model falls in the whole market for similar products. 
Consumers could perform these tasks with the estimated yearly energy 
cost disclosure, but that would be significantly more difficult than 
reviewing ranges on a label because consumers would have to find the 
energy usage of all comparable models on their own. On the other hand, 
rapid market changes may quickly render disclosed ranges obsolete while 
imposing compliance burdens on manufacturers. Further, eliminating the 
ranges but maintaining the same font and text size for the other 
information would simplify the label, thus, making is easier to use. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on CTA's proposal (see sample 
label at Illustration 1). Commenters should address the costs and 
benefits of the proposal, including the timing for such a transition, 
should the Commission decide to eliminate the ranges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(9) (giving the FTC discretion over 
labeling requirements for certain covered products, including 
televisions listed in subsection (a)(2)(I)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P>
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.006

BILLING CODE 6750-01-C

[[Page 7575]]

D. Water Heaters

    Background and Comments: Rheem, a water heater manufacturer, 
suggested several label changes for instantaneous (i.e., ``on-demand'') 
water heaters. First, it recommended allowing manufacturers to affix 
the label to gas-fired instantaneous water heater packages (instead of 
the product itself).\63\ According to Rheem, since these units 
frequently operate in visible living spaces, the label may be 
aesthetically undesirable on the product. Second, it recommended a 
smaller label for both gas-fired and electric instantaneous water 
heater packages because the packaging profile for many models is not 
much larger than the EnergyGuide label itself, leaving limited room for 
other important product information and advertising. To support its 
position, Rheem cited Rule provisions allowing smaller labels and 
different space-saving configurations in other contexts (e.g., 
television labels and labels in paper catalogs).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ The Rule currently makes this allowance for electric 
instantaneous water heaters only. 16 CFR 305.13(e)(3).
    \64\ In addition, Rheem recommended against any label changes 
that would add information featured on European labels, such as 
decibel level, demand response capability, and a map indicating how 
a heat pump water heater will perform in different regions. The 
Commission has not proposed such changes. Rheem also urged the FTC 
to work with DOE to ensure labeling requirements are consistent with 
recent DOE proposals to apply the conservation standards to consumer 
water heaters. It also recommended a correction to size category 
references 16 CFR 305.17(a)(9) related to alignment with those in 
Appendix E. The Commission addressed this issue in a January 2023 
Final Rule; correction and correcting amendment. See 88 FR 1135 
(Jan. 9, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rheem also raised a separate issue about boilers. It observed some 
boilers operate as combination space/water heaters. The current test 
procedure, however, does not address these combined functions. 
Therefore, Rheem recommended the Rule require text stating these 
products can be used for space and water heating.
    Discussion: In response to the comments, the Commission proposes 
allowing the labels for instantaneous gas models to appear on packaging 
because of the difficulties in affixing the label to the product itself 
and the likelihood that few such models are displayed out of the box. 
Given the packaging size, the Commission also proposes decreasing the 
size of the labels for both instantaneous electric and gas-fired water 
heaters by one-third (see Illustration 2) to leave room on product 
boxes for other important information. This size reduction should not 
detract from the label's usefulness because the text and font size on 
the label will be identical to the existing label. Finally, the 
Commission does not propose changing the label to inform consumers 
particular water heater models can also be used for space heating. The 
Commission is concerned that adding this information to the label may 
cause confusion (e.g., suggesting the label's water heating information 
applies to the product's space heating operation). However, 
manufacturers may instead inform consumers about the product's space 
heating capabilities in statements off the label, on packaging, and its 
advertising.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

[[Page 7576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.007

BILLING CODE 6750-01-C

E. Pool Heaters

    Background and Comments: The Rule currently requires manufacturers 
to label pool heaters using thermal efficiency as the primary 
disclosure. In Rheem's view, the current label does not provide 
consumers with the information necessary to make informed purchasing 
decisions because it does not include fuel type, capacity, and a 
comparability range of either efficiency or annual energy cost. Rheem 
noted in the past the FTC has refrained from requiring additional 
information due to limitations in the DOE's pool heater test 
procedure.\65\ However, Rheem now explains DOE has updated its test 
procedure to include a new efficiency metric (integrated thermal 
efficiency) and to provide a method to derive other important 
information such as estimated annual energy costs. Rheem did note DOE's 
updated procedure lacks a clear delineation of capacity.\66\ Therefore, 
Rheem urged the FTC to urge DOE to include appropriate capacity metrics 
in its final rule for consumer pool heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See, e.g., 72 FR 49948, 49953-54 (Aug. 29, 2007).
    \66\ Rheem noted DOE regulations require manufacturers to 
certify the input capacity of each gas-fired pool heater model. 10 
CFR 429.24(b)(2). However, DOE's ongoing energy conservation 
standards rulemaking proposal would effectively require heat pump 
technology on these products. Since heat pump pool heaters move heat 
instead of generating heat, DOE argued output capacity may be a 
better capacity metric than input capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission seeks comment on amending the pool 
heater label to include an annual operating cost disclosure and 
additional information (e.g., fuel type, capacity, etc.) consistent 
with other EnergyGuide labels.\67\ Commenters should also address any 
specific issues related to capacity disclosures for these products. 
Additionally, since DOE's changes to the pool heater standards will not 
become effective until 2028,\68\ the Commission seeks comment on 
whether any label changes should coincide with this DOE compliance 
date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Most EnergyGuide labels required by part 305 routinely 
display some sort of capacity figure.
    \68\ 88 FR 34624 (May 30, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Boilers

    Background and Comments: As discussed below, several boiler 
manufacturers commented on labeling issues for their products. Four 
manufacturers recommended significant changes, and two others opposed 
any changes to the Rule's current approach.
    Specifically, manufacturers WM Technologies and Marley Engineered 
Products (together, ``The Marley Company'') recommended allowing 
manufacturers to consolidate energy-related information for multiple 
models within a product family onto a single label, in order to 
minimize manufacturers' burden of maintaining multiple model-specific 
labels as required by the current Rule. Similarly, manufacturers Crown 
and Burnham (``Crown'') recommended replacing the current model-
specific labels with a common QR code or similar feature directing 
consumers ``to an on-line source where the Energy Guide `label'

[[Page 7577]]

for that model could be easily found (e.g., the AHRI Directory).'' 
Crown observed consumers do not purchase boilers in showrooms because 
the choice of an appropriate boiler requires the expertise of a 
contractor. Boilers operate as part of a system that includes fuel, 
heating capacity, heating medium, operating water temperature range, 
and venting. In Crown's view, only trained professionals have the 
expertise to weigh these factors to determine which boilers can operate 
safely, reliably, and efficiently in a particular home. Thus, requiring 
manufacturers to include model-specific energy consumption data on the 
boilers themselves makes little sense. Faced with a choice provided by 
contractors, Crown explained consumers often research boiler models and 
brands prior to purchase, but do so using on-line resources and/or 
printed literature. Accordingly, Crown stated that replacing the 
current model-specific label with a feature directing consumers to an 
online resource would be more helpful to consumers.
    Additionally, Crown recommended eliminating the requirement that 
labels be affixed to boilers. Instead, it suggested the Rule allow 
manufacturers to include the label as a paper insert or tag either hung 
on the boiler or inserted in an envelope with the manual and other 
documentation. Crown noted modern boilers are much smaller than past 
models and finding space for the label ``has been a growing challenge'' 
adding cost and assembly time. In its opinion, the EnergyGuide labels 
not only ``detract from appliance appearance'' but ``more importantly, 
compete for consumer attention with labels that convey important post 
purchase information, including safe installation and operation. Such a 
change would also address challenges with ensuring the appropriate 
materials and adhesives are employed to keep labels on products.
    Other manufacturers did not support any changes to the current 
label. Bradford White (``BWC'') explained it has not received any 
feedback from customers, or product end-users, to indicate the current 
label fails to clearly communicate important information to consumers. 
In addition, BWC observed the current information on labels aligns with 
DOE's requirements. Rheem also did not recommend any changes to 
existing boiler labels.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Rheem also explained, consistent with past FTC positions, 
an annual energy cost would have limited value to consumers because 
it is based on national average heating load hours and thus will not 
adequately represent a consumer's actual operating cost. Therefore, 
Rheem recommended the Commission retain the efficiency comparability 
range. In addition, similar to its recommendation for pool heaters, 
Rheem recommended the FTC work with DOE to include the appropriate 
capacity metrics in the certification requirements in the energy 
conservation standard final Rule for consumer boilers. Finally, 
Rheem noted the cost information link on the label directs consumers 
to DOE's general database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On a separate issue, the Marley Company and Crown recommended 
eliminating inconsistencies in the requirements for labeling boilers 
and furnaces. The Marley Company noted installers can configure both 
oil and gas boilers for capacities different from the one preset by the 
manufacturer, but the Rule currently allows only labels for oil boilers 
to list information for these alternative capacities. It recommended 
eliminating this inconsistency by allowing labels for both oil and gas 
boilers to include alternative capacities information. In addition, 
Crown noted Sec.  305.20(f)(11) requires manufacturers to use the 
boiler's lowest attainable AFUE rating to label multiple-input boilers 
with more than one input nozzle to be installed in the field. In 
contrast, Sec. Sec.  305.4(a) and 305.20(f)(13) require manufacturers 
to label the same boilers with the AFUE rating for input capacity set 
by the manufacturer. Crown also explained these sections could be read 
to set different labeling standards for multiple-input boilers and for 
furnaces when ``no logical reason'' justifies the difference. Crown 
proposed language for Sec.  305.20(f)(11) and (13) to eliminate these 
apparent discrepancies.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing the general 
content of existing boiler labels.\70\ Consistent with comments from 
BWC and Rheem, there is no clear evidence the current label fails to 
assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. In addition, allowing 
labels with information for multiple models within a product family 
would likely crowd the label and make it more difficult for consumers 
to use.\71\ Similarly, moving to a QR-type label would likely erode the 
label's benefits because it would require consumers to take additional 
steps to access the information (see further discussion at Section VI 
infra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ In response to Rheem's comment, the proposed amendments 
also correct a typographical error in the DOE published number for 
the energy equivalence of No. 2 heating oil.
    \71\ The Marley Company appears to propose the optional use of 
labels with information for multiple models for not only boilers but 
all products covered by the Rule. Because the additional information 
would tend to crowd these labels as well, the Commission also 
declines to propose the use of such labels with respect to these 
other products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission, however, seeks further comment on whether it should 
amend the Rule's boiler label placement. Specifically, given the 
concerns discussed above, commenters should address whether the Rule 
should allow manufacturers to ship the label with the product in lieu 
of affixing the label to the unit (see also Section VI infra). The 
Commission is not proposing such a change at this time because it lacks 
sufficient information on whether shipping labels with the product 
would undermine the label's effectiveness.
    Finally, the Commission proposes adopting the proposed language to 
Sec.  305.20 offered by Crown and other clarifying language to address 
concerns raised by Crown and the Marley Company regarding discrepancies 
in labeling requirements for boilers and furnaces (see proposed 
Sec. Sec.  305.10(h), 305.20(f)(11) and (13), and 305.22(c)). As 
suggested by the commenters, the proposed amendments adopt a consistent 
approach for labeling boilers with more than one input nozzle to be 
installed in the field, clarify that the same standard applies to both 
boilers and furnaces, and remove an inconsistency in labeling oil and 
gas boilers and furnaces.\72\ Commenters should address whether this 
clarifying amendment is helpful and appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ For multiple-input furnaces and boilers with no factory-
installed nozzle, the proposed label discloses the lowest AFUE 
rating obtainable by the system. For those with at least one 
factory-installed nozzle, the proposed label discloses the AFUE 
rating associated with the input capacity set by the manufacturer. 
Regardless of whether the boiler or furnace is fueled by oil, the 
proposed label may include optional information regarding the 
product's alternative capacities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Matching Label Format and Location to Consumer Shopping Patterns

    In the ANPR, the Commission solicited comments on alternatives to 
the current ``showroom-ready'' approach. The Commission additionally 
requested any recent research or data demonstrating when and where 
consumers typically make purchasing decisions for the types of products 
covered by the Rule. In this section, the Commission discusses comments 
regarding current shopping trends and label placement, and proposes new 
label placement requirements for showroom appliances.

A. Comments on Shopping Trends

    Several commenters (e.g., AHAM, Whirlpool, and the California IOUs) 
highlighted the increasing tendency of consumers to research major 
appliances online before making a purchase, even when they make the 
purchase in-store. Moreover, the commenters noted consumers are 
increasingly comfortable with buying large consumer products without 
visiting a store. For example,

[[Page 7578]]

the California IOUs pointed to a 2013 GE Capital study showing 81 
percent of consumers research major appliances costing $500 or more 
online before purchasing, with 88 percent of respondents ultimately 
making their purchase in-store. They also cited a more recent 2021 
study by Bain and Company finding 26 percent of global consumers were 
``more willing to buy appliances online than they were prior to the 
pandemic.'' The California IOUs concluded online information is a 
``critical driver for consumer purchases'' but acknowledged most 
consumers still make their final purchase decisions in physical stores. 
In their view, these trends highlight the continued need for labels on 
showroom floors while pointing to the additional utility of QR codes 
for online research and for providing multilingual information.
    In addition, AHAM noted, in 2012, two-thirds of consumers 
researched models online prior to purchasing an appliance, whereas, in 
2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, ``close to 90 percent of 
consumers'' conducted such online research, and 80 percent planned to 
continue such online research after the pandemic.
    AHAM and Whirlpool also observed once consumers visit a showroom 
after conducting preliminary research online, energy efficiency becomes 
less important to their final in-store decisions.\73\ Moreover, 
according to AHAM, the ENERGY STAR logo, annual energy consumption, and 
annual operating cost information rank in the bottom half of 
``identified characteristics'' by consumers. Instead, consumers focus 
on other purchase factors, primarily the product's purchase price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ According to Whirlpool, consumers look for energy 
efficiency but generally do not want to pay more for it or 
compromise on product performance. Further, consumers generally do 
not notice large differences in efficiency once they shop in the 
stores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Whirlpool also noted the decrease in the amount of printed 
information sellers use at the point of purchase and an increase in 
their use of online information, including information linked through 
QR codes. According to Whirlpool, many consumers never read point-of-
purchase materials nor keep them for future reference. Instead, 
consumers often expect to access such material remotely through QR 
codes. Whirlpool further asserted that although some printed material 
or labels are helpful during product setup or to comply with regulatory 
requirements, product information is ``increasingly only found online, 
at no apparent detriment to the consumer.'' Whirlpool's own research 
found consumers ``noticed and liked QR codes used in retail stores to 
scan and locate more product information on their appliances.'' 
Consumers also liked QR codes as an alternative to paper literature and 
labels, which can be easily lost or not transferred from previous 
homeowners. Its research found a strong majority of consumers would 
find a QR code linking to more information online to ``be helpful to 
their in-store shopping experience.''
    Commenter Merriam emphasized how energy-efficient appliances can 
help meet climate goals and ensure electricity system reliability. In 
doing so, it highlighted several key points from recent studies on 
consumers' purchasing decisions. For instance, one European study found 
annual energy expenditures communicated in the form of a monetary value 
increased the likelihood consumers would purchase an energy-efficient 
appliance.\74\ Another found consumers tend to focus on a label's 
``headline'' and were likely to purchase energy-efficient equipment, 
especially where the cost of operating the equipment is expensive.\75\ 
Based on this research, Merriam recommended continued use of annual 
energy costs as the primary disclosure, which ``provide simple and 
consistent messaging about the range or rating of cost energy 
savings.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Julia Blasch, Massimo Filippini, & Nilkanth Kumar, 
``Boundedly Rational Consumers, Energy & Investment Literacy, & 
Display of Info. on Household Appliances,'' Resource & Energy Econ., 
Recent Advances in Econ. Analysis of Energy Demand--Insights for 
Indus. & Households, May 2019, Vol. 56, 39-58, available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2017.06.001.
    \75\ Lucas W. Davis & Gilbert E. Metcalf, ``Does Better Info. 
Lead to Better Choices? Evidence from Energy-Efficiency Labels.'' J. 
of Ass'n of Envtl. & Resource Economists, Sept. 2016, Vol. 3 No. 3, 
589-625, available at https://www.nber.org/papers/w20720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments on Label Placement for Showroom Appliances

    As discussed below, several commenters offered proposals to 
restructure the Rule's requirements for label placement and 
presentation. Generally, manufacturers urged a shift to a virtual or 
``electronic label,'' which would provide consumers access to energy 
information through a QR code link or similar feature. Other commenters 
argued against any approach eliminating physical labels in stores. 
Finally, industry commenters urged the Commission to provide adequate 
lead-time to make any changes necessary to comply with Rule amendments.
    Major Showroom Appliances: Commenters offered different opinions 
about the Commission's approach to labeling major showroom appliances.
    Some, particularly Earthjustice and NYSERDA, urged the FTC to 
ensure labels are available to consumers in stores and to maximize 
label accessibility. Specifically, Earthjustice argued eliminating 
showroom labels is inconsistent with EPCA, which states the FTC ``shall 
require that each covered product in the type or class of covered 
products to which the [Rule] applies bear a label which discloses'' the 
information of the sort provided on an EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts 
label. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). Further, in Earthjustice's view, the 
label's ubiquitous presence on covered products ``helps to improve 
consumers' familiarity with the label.'' Even if a consumer does not 
see the label until after purchase, its presence increases the 
likelihood the consumer ``will later become aware of the label and the 
information it conveys.'' Such ``after-the-fact'' awareness, in 
Earthjustice's view, increases the likelihood consumers will use the 
label for future purchases. In addition, NYSERDA argued energy labels 
are ``most impactful when they can be readily accessed wherever a 
consumer may be looking for them, be that online, in stores, or in a 
showroom.'' \76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Several commenters similarly recommended the Commission 
ensure labels are available in showrooms for consumers to examine 
(see, e.g., DuSaint, Ring (also saying the label should be available 
in the product packaging or literature bag), Wesolowski, Davis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, industry members recommended major changes to the 
label placement requirements. AHAM, which has long supported a shift 
from paper to electronic labels, argued the technology and 
infrastructure is now available to ``easily permit the electronic 
delivery of label information.'' AHAM noted manufacturers already 
provide label information online to comply with existing Rule 
provisions (see, e.g., Sec. Sec.  305.9, 305.11(a)(5), and 305.27). 
Therefore, it proposed a transition away from ``outdated'' physical 
labels to reliance on labels online, citing research indicating 
consumers examine product information online before going to brick-and-
mortar stores for purchase. Specifically, it recommended ``flexible 
approaches to allow manufacturers and retailers to deliver the label 
content, in an electronic format to consumers.''
    Whirlpool also recommended giving manufacturers flexibility, 
whether through a QR code printed in product literature (e.g., in a 
quick start guide), on the packaging for some covered

[[Page 7579]]

products, and/or through a label permanently affixed to the product 
itself in a prominent location. Whirlpool further recommended adding 
explanatory text to the label directing consumers to a website with 
information about the product's energy efficiency and operating costs. 
AHAM emphasized the need for different approaches depending on the 
product categories (e.g., products displayed in a box compared to 
unpackaged units displayed on showroom floors). For products displayed 
in boxes, such as air cleaners, it proposed requiring a QR code. For 
major appliances displayed on showrooms, AHAM stated its members would 
``be open to QR codes on the product and/or on the owner's manual as an 
option so long as the requirements are flexible.''
    AHAM also cited benefits from electronic labeling, arguing a label 
available online would be more impactful because a consumer's 
``appliance purchase journey starts with online research.'' In AHAM's 
view, printed labels shipped inside appliance units (e.g., clothes 
washers, dishwashers, and refrigerators) ultimately do not assist 
consumers because the purchase has already occurred when they see the 
label. AHAM contends consumers likely discard such labels immediately 
upon installation. Thus, it concluded a shift to purely electronic 
labeling would eliminate redundant paper labels, involve few regulatory 
changes, and ``dramatically reduce regulatory burden and cost'' related 
to printing, affixing, and shipping labels.\77\ It also stressed this 
change would ``be more sustainable'' because it would dramatically 
decrease the paper and ink used to comply with the Rule. According to 
Whirlpool, who agreed that many labels are often discarded without 
helping consumers, the resources needed to print and ship these labels 
are a ``very non-sustainable practice.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ According to Whirlpool, such an approach will make future 
label updates and transitions quicker, easier, and less confusing 
for manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.
    \78\ Whirlpool explained that labels printed and shipped with 
every unit involve ``tremendous cost'' and are an enormous waste of 
resources, including the paper for labels, the adhesive backing, 
printer ink, and other supplies (e.g., zip ties, eyelets, and/or 
string). For example, one manufacturing location wasted about 43,000 
pounds of wax paper every single year from the backing used for the 
label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, AHAM argued a move to electronic labels would provide 
consumers ready access to the label content (through, for example, 
links, QR codes, or apps) in a form and manner that best suits them. In 
addition, such an approach would give retailers flexibility to present 
the label content either by printing the label or through an electronic 
device (e.g., phone, tablet). According to AHAM, an electronic format 
would also allow manufacturers to easily update labels and make 
corrections to online content when, for example, the FTC updates 
comparability ranges. AHAM also urged the FTC to work with Canadian 
regulators to, for example, align data elements, reporting, and content 
of labels. It noted that because manufacturers often display the U.S. 
and Canadian labels back-to-back or side-by-side on the same piece of 
paper, environmental benefits, burden reduction, and cost savings will 
be largely lost if only one country shifts to electronic labeling.
    Alternatively, should the Commission decline to adopt electronic 
labeling, AHAM and Whirlpool suggested the Rule require manufacturers 
to affix labels only to those units designated by manufacturers as 
showroom models. According to AHAM, manufacturers routinely ship 
designated ``floor units'' to retailers with special point-of-purchase 
labels and other material. While this special treatment does not cover 
100% of units ultimately displayed by retailers, this process ensures 
most floor units will have the manufacturers' point-of-purchase 
information, including labels, applied in the factories. Given this 
practice, AHAM did not object to a Rule provision requiring physical 
labels ``for the limited number of major appliance units that are 
displayed on showroom floors on an as needed basis to reduce waste.'' 
Accordingly, AHAM stated ``it is possible, without a significant amount 
of burden, to ship floor units to retailers with labels.'' Whirlpool 
added that such an approach, while less preferable than a complete 
transition to electronic labeling, would impose less burden than the 
current requirements.
    According to AHAM, manufacturers lack control over products once 
they leave the factory and thus cannot address missing labels on 
showroom floors whether removed intentionally or inadvertently. To 
ensure labels are present on showroom models, AHAM suggested the Rule 
affirmatively require retailers to place labels on any floor units that 
lack a physical label (e.g., replacement floor units, units displayed 
after the initial production run, or units from which labels have been 
intentionally or inadvertently removed). Under such an approach, 
retailers could access all labels online to print and attach them 
themselves, or request manufacturers to ship (or a local manufacturer 
representative deliver) printed labels.
    In discussing potential retailer requirements, AHAM suggested ways 
the Commission could minimize retailer burden, including providing 
flexibility for label materials and attachment methods, requiring 
manufacturers to ship labels in a ``showroom ready'' state for 
designated floor models, allowing retailers to use existing electronic 
labels accessed through DOE's website, and ensuring retailers have 
adequate time to comply with any new requirements. Similarly, Whirlpool 
recommended that the FTC reduce the Rule's format and attachment 
requirements for retailers since certain provisions aimed at ensuring 
label durability through the supply chain would not be applicable to 
retailer-applied labels. In addition, Whirlpool noted retailers may 
lack the resources to meet the label size, paper weight, and other 
requirements of the current Rule.
    Other commenters cautioned against loosening the label attachment 
requirements. Citing past concerns about the absence of labels in 
showrooms, Earthjustice warned lack of regulatory specificity could 
lead to non-compliance. In 2015, the FTC added specificity to its 
regulations governing adhesives and hang tags to address missing 
labels.\79\ Earthjustice argued reducing such specificity now ``would 
encourage a return to labelling practices that deprive consumers of 
access to the important information that EnergyGuide labels provide.'' 
Earthjustice also noted detailed, ``highly standardized'' format and 
content requirements help ensure EnergyGuide labels can be readily 
distinguished ``from a variety of other text and images that may be 
present on display models or product packaging.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Televisions: CTA, an association which represents television 
manufacturers, recommended the Commission allow electronic labeling for 
covered products incorporating electronic displays. Similar to AHAM, 
CTA argued a physical label requirement is no longer necessary because 
energy cost information is widely available online and frequently used 
by consumers. Therefore, CTA urged the Commission to allow sellers to 
display information electronically. According to CTA, this ``may 
involve the presentation of the EnergyGuide disclosure on the product's 
display or screen retrievable on command.'' According to CTA, such 
electronic labels would allow consumers to both view the label at the 
time of purchase,

[[Page 7580]]

and ``retrieve a TV model's energy use information long after a product 
is sold.'' For businesses, the electronic label would support the 
industry's sustainability efforts by reducing ``printed and physical 
materials.'' In addition, citing recent FCC electronic labeling 
measures as well as e-labeling in Canada and Australia, CTA noted such 
an approach would also be consistent with U.S. and global approaches to 
electronic labeling, or e-labeling, in other contexts.

C. Comments on Labeling for Heating and Cooling Equipment

    Commenters also addressed labeling for central air conditioners, 
heat pumps, and furnaces, products which consumers generally do not 
purchase directly in showrooms or online but instead buy through their 
contractors. AHRI, which represents manufacturers of these products, 
recommended continuing the requirement that labels be attached to 
products that are still occasionally displayed at a retail store, such 
as some water heaters. However, AHRI contended labels affixed to 
products that consumers generally buy through contractors, such as 
central air conditioners and furnaces, do not help consumers. In fact, 
it explained these products are generally not available from retail 
stores.\80\ Further, consumers often buy replacement systems in 
emergency situations and usually purchase whatever the contractor has 
available, e.g., when a water heater catastrophically fails. In each of 
these scenarios, the consumer does not view either the product or the 
label.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ AHRI cited to discussions in earlier rulemakings where the 
FTC acknowledged the label has little benefit for the present 
purchase but likely provides benefit for subsequent purchases. See 
72 FR 6836 (Feb. 13, 2007).
    \81\ With respect to split system central air conditioners, AHRI 
also questioned the label's utility even if the consumer were to see 
it prior to purchase. The label currently displays the efficiency 
rating for the least efficient outdoor unit-indoor unit combination. 
According to AHRI, however, the actual installed system may operate 
at a higher efficiency than the displayed rating. In contrast, 
contractors and the AHRI Directory can provide more accurate 
information accounting for a ``matched system rather than the lowest 
possible efficiency.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, AHRI recommended replacing the physical label with an 
electronic one. According to AHRI, a QR code link to an online label 
would reduce compliance costs for manufacturers while still providing 
key information to those consumers and retailers who want it. 
Specifically, AHRI recommended requiring smaller QR labels on central 
air conditioners and furnaces which link to the full EnergyGuide label 
on a publicly accessible website, such as the AHRI directory. For 
central air conditioners and heat pumps where appropriate, this smaller 
label should include regional identification information to easily 
communicate the DOE regional standards applicable to these products--
thus helping contractors and consumers comply with the law.\82\ 
Further, AHRI argued because efforts to comply with the new DOE 
requirements will result in an extended transition to new labels and 
potential market confusion, an electronic label, which manufacturers 
can readily update, would ease the shift to new metrics while reducing 
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See also Daiken's and The Marley Company's comments. In 
addition to this electronic labeling approach, AHRI suggested the 
Commission allow a paper label option on the units themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rheem, however, expressed a different view. Although Rheem 
acknowledged the utility of QR codes in helping consumers find current 
information, it did not support a transition to a QR code or fully 
electronic label. At the same time, Rheem argued the EnergyGuide label 
does not need to be attached to the unit itself, noting consumers may 
not want a visible label if the unit is installed in a living space. 
Finally, Rheem argued the Rule should not require a showroom label for 
water heaters, boilers, and pool heaters because only a small portion 
of the models available on the market are displayed in a showroom.\83\ 
Instead, in its view, online sources of information, and consultation 
with professional installers offer the best ways to help consumers make 
informed decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Two water heater industry commenters favored keeping the existing 
labels. AHRI asserted most manufacturers find value in a physical label 
and are opposed to transitioning solely to an electronic label. 
Similarly, BWC, a water heater and boiler manufacturer, opposed any 
changes to existing labeling requirements for its products. It observed 
the current labels clearly communicate annual energy cost and use 
savings information to consumers. It warned any revisions to the 
EnergyGuide label ``would require a significant undertaking.'' In 
addition, BWC stated QR codes would be ``largely unnecessary'' because 
the label information is currently available through other sources, 
such as AHRI's Directory.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ BWC also sought clarity regarding the term ``showroom 
ready'' as used in the ANPR. The Commission clarifies the reference 
was simply a shorthand to describe current Rule provisions requiring 
manufacturers to affix a label on every unit in a location that 
would be visible to consumers examining the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Changes to Label Placement Requirements

    To ensure labels are available on showroom appliances and to 
decrease unnecessary labeling burdens, the Commission proposes several 
label placement amendments for products frequently displayed in 
showrooms such as refrigerators, clothes washers, and dishwashers. As 
discussed below, the Commission does not propose changes to television 
label placement but seeks comment on whether the proposed requirements 
for showroom appliances should apply to televisions. Finally, the 
Commission does not propose any changes for label placement for heating 
and cooling products but seeks comment on whether the Rule should allow 
manufacturers to include the label with the product shipment instead of 
affixing it to the unit itself.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ In addition, the Commission does not propose changing the 
efficiency information for central air conditioners. While the label 
does not (and cannot) predict the efficiency of the specific 
installed system, it provides consumers with a general estimate of 
the installed unit's efficiency rating that can be used for 
comparative purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under proposed Sec.  305.13, manufacturers of refrigerators/
freezers, clothes washers, and dishwashers must ship all units with a 
physical label.\86\ However, the proposed requirements for affixing 
adhesive labels and hang tags to the product itself would only apply to 
units designated by the manufacturer for showroom display. For all 
other units, the Rule would require manufacturers to include a paper 
label with the unit in some fashion (e.g., in the literature bag or 
another location consumers and retailers can easily see when opening 
the product's packaging). Additionally, the proposal requires retailers 
to ensure any refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes washer, or dryer unit 
they choose to display in a showroom has a label in a location visible 
to a consumer examining the product. Retailers are in the best position 
to ensure labels continue to be displayed on their showroom floors. The 
proposed Rule, however, does not impose any prescriptive label 
placement or attachment requirements for retailers both because the 
labels do not need to survive transportation and retailers, under the 
proposal, would have the obligation to replace any missing labels. In 
addition, to effectuate the proposed retailer requirements, the 
proposed Rule requires manufacturers to furnish labels for these 
appliances to retailers upon request to ease retailer burdens. Given 
this new responsibility, the proposal

[[Page 7581]]

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

    \86\ These changes would also apply to dryers and miscellaneous 
refrigerators if they are labeled following this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For consumers, the proposed Sec.  305.13 helps ensure every 
appliance displayed in a showroom has an EnergyGuide label, including 
by requiring retailers to replace labels. However, the proposal does so 
without imposing unnecessary costs on manufacturers. Specifically, 
manufacturers would no longer have to affix adhesive or hang tag labels 
on millions of units that consumers will never see until after the unit 
is purchased. Instead, with the exception of a small number of 
showroom-designated units (a tiny fraction of units produced), 
manufacturers will simply include a paper label with the shipped 
product. This streamlining should greatly reduce the time involved in 
affixing individual labels and resources used in the form of adhesive 
materials, special paper, hang tag material, and other similar supplies 
without interfering with consumers' access to the label.
    The proposal, however, does not allow sellers to substitute a 
virtual or electronic label (e.g., a QR code) for the physical 
label.\87\ Abandoning physical labels would likely degrade the label's 
effectiveness and reduce the program's benefits for consumers. 
Specifically, physical labels disclose all the required information for 
shoppers on showroom floors. QR codes, in contrast, allow only a self-
selected portion of shoppers (i.e., those that have mobile internet 
access and take the extra effort to retrieve the information online) 
access to the label. Although industry commenters suggest some 
consumers ignore in-store labels, eliminating them would deprive other 
consumers of valuable information they rely upon.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Labels are already widely available through retail and 
manufacturer websites as well as DOE's website as required by the 
Rule.
    \88\ Earthjustice argued that replacing physical labels with QR 
codes would be inconsistent with EPCA. We do not see the need to 
address that issue at this time. However, to the extent 
manufacturers want to communicate additional information to 
consumers, they may do so by providing other point-of-sale material, 
including QR codes, separate from the physical label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission does not propose allowing television 
labels to appear on screen in lieu of physical labels. As the 
Commission explained in an earlier proceeding, the method for 
implementing an effective electronic label is unclear.\89\ Such a 
provision would require retailers to display an EnergyGuide label at 
all times, and the Commission has no evidence regarding the feasibility 
of doing so. Specifically, if retailers do not continuously power up 
all their showroom units, the image might appear only periodically. 
Further, retail staff or consumers may turn off the product's label-
displaying mode to provide shoppers with an unobstructed image. Such 
intermittent display of the label would make it less likely the 
required information was available to consumers examining products in 
stores and therefore could significantly reduce the labels' ability to 
assist consumers in their purchasing decisions. However, given the lack 
of record evidence, the Commission seeks comment on this issue, 
including whether the Commission should follow the same approach for 
televisions it has proposed here for labeling appliances (i.e., 
requiring manufacturers to place labels only on showroom-designated 
models and creating a new requirement for retailers to ensure labels on 
any model they choose to display).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the Rule should allow manufacturers to simply 
ship a paper label with the product. The Commission recognizes these 
products generally do not appear in showrooms. Thus, consumers are 
unlikely to see labels affixed to those products prior to purchase. The 
Commission does not, however, propose this change in this NPRM because, 
as the Commission has observed in the past, labels attached to these 
types of units can help consumers in future purchases.\90\ Commenters 
should address whether this reasoning remains valid. For central air 
conditioners, commenters should also address whether labels shipped 
with the product (but not affixed to it) will adequately inform 
installers about DOE regional standards requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Finally, commenters should address whether the Commission should 
follow the same approach for televisions it has proposed here for 
labeling appliances (i.e., requiring manufacturers to place labels only 
on showroom-designated models and creating a new requirement for 
retailers to ensure labels on any model they choose to display).

VII. Proposals for New Label Content

    Background and Comments: Several commenters recommended the 
Commission consider ways to provide consumers with climate-related 
information and other environmental impact data such as full fuel cycle 
data. For example, NYSERDA recommended including greenhouse gas 
emissions (``GHG'') information on the labels to help consumers 
understand the broader environmental impact of their purchases. To 
convey variability in emissions related to electricity use across the 
country, NYSERDA suggested displaying a range of emissions based on the 
average grid intensities collected by the EPA and the U.S. Energy 
Information Agency (``EIA'').\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ In addition, an anonymous commenter (#0013), citing 
research about the use of ozone-depleting hydrochlorofluorocarbons 
(``HCFCs'') in some refrigeration products, suggested that any 
refrigeration products containing HCFCs should contain labels 
informing consumers of such, or at least how to appropriately 
dispose of these items. The Commission does not propose to include 
this information on the label as it pertains to issues related to 
the end of the product's life and would likely crowd the information 
already there, thus potentially reducing the label's effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The National Propane Gas Association (``NPGA''), the American Gas 
Association (``AGA''), and the American Public Gas Association 
(``APGA'') (collectively ``the Group'') recommended adopting a Full 
Fuel Cycle (``FFC'') energy label for household appliances. This 
label's disclosure would include estimates of the energy used in 
transportation, distribution, generation, production, and extraction. 
The Group argued such a label would be consistent with the agency's 
mission to providing consumers complete and accurate information under 
the law. They further argued including such information would promote 
fuel neutrality and advance policy priorities by helping to tackle 
climate change. Finally, the commenters contended this labeling is now 
feasible because the FFC test procedures necessary to adopt this new 
label are straightforward and already available to the FTC from 
DOE.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The Group also argued the FTC has legal authority to adopt 
FFC labels, noting that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)(A), the 
contents of the label are at the discretion of the FTC so long as it 
accords with test procedures set forth by DOE under 42 U.S.C. 
6293.26. Furthermore, EPCA expressly grants the FTC the ability to 
disclose additional information about energy consumption on labels 
if such information would assist consumers in making purchasing 
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Group further recommended streamlining the existing label to 
consist of the headlines ``RESIDENTIAL ENERGY COST & EMISSIONS'' and 
``ENERGYGUIDE'' above a QR code, which would link consumers to the 
energy efficiency and associated FFC cost of products where data is 
available.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose amending the label to 
convert it into a QR code linking consumers to FFC information as 
suggested by some commenters. As discussed elsewhere in this Notice, 
replacing the current label with a QR code is likely to decrease the 
label's utility for consumers (see Sections V.F and VI supra).

[[Page 7582]]

    In addition, the Commission does not propose amending existing 
labels to add FFC or GHG emissions information about individual 
products.\93\ It is not clear, for instance, whether such additional 
technical information is helpful or whether the information already on 
the label (e.g., the annual fuel costs), provides an adequate proxy for 
relative comparisons of the FFC impacts of competing products. 
Additionally, as the electricity grid evolves toward renewables and 
away from sources such as coal, the difference in emissions between 
fuels may narrow; thus diluting the relevance of such fuel comparisons. 
Further, additional FFC or GHG emissions information would clutter the 
label, potentially confusing consumers, and otherwise detract from the 
central disclosures related to the energy cost or energy efficiency of 
the labeled product. Accordingly, weighing the uncertain benefits of 
such a disclosure against the likely reduction in the label's utility, 
the Commission declines to propose these changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Under EPCA, the Commission may include on the label 
additional information relating to energy consumption if it would 
assist consumers in purchasing decisions or product use, and would 
not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an alternative, the Commission could explore, with DOE, creating 
online consumer resources to provide FFC and/or GHG information for 
individual covered products, even if such information is not included 
on the EnergyGuide labels. However, before committing resources to such 
a combined agency effort, the Commission invites comment on such an 
approach.

VIII. Additional Issues

    Commenters also raised proposals and questions about a range of 
additional issues including lamp reporting, potential lamp and ceiling 
fan labels, transitional label language, range updates, compliance 
dates for ranges, television data updates, a categorical ranking 
system, bilingual information, coordination with other agencies, 
prescriptive requirements, and online label requirements. The following 
section summarizes these comments and provides the Commission's 
analysis.

A. Lamp Reporting

    Background and Comments: The Commission sought comment in the ANPR 
on whether the Rule should require lamp manufacturers to include 
information regarding their Lighting Facts labels with their DOE data 
reports. The Rule already requires manufacturers of other covered 
consumer products to provide a website address linking to their 
EnergyGuide labels as part of their required data reports, which 
manufacturers submit through the DOE reporting system.\94\ The 
Commission did not extend this requirement to the Lighting Facts labels 
in 2016 given appropriation restrictions placed on DOE spending related 
to light bulbs at that time. Instead, the Commission stated it would 
revisit the issue at ``a later date should circumstances warrant.'' 
\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ 81 FR 63634 (Sept. 15, 2016); 16 CFR 305.11 (FTC reporting 
requirements).
    \95\ 81 FR at 63636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, NEMA urged the Commission to refrain from requiring 
links to Lighting Facts labels in reports submitted via the DOE data 
website (CCMS) because current realities of the consumer marketplace do 
not warrant it. According to NEMA, the ``logistical coordination of the 
digital location of online content over time is very complicated for 
lamp products.'' In addition, because the label already contains the 
product characteristics, additional DOE reporting would only provide 
duplicative information. NEMA also argued the proposal would increase 
the burden on the FTC to review this data, much of which has little 
relevance to consumers.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose requiring lamp 
manufacturers to include information regarding their Lighting Facts 
labels with their data reports. Commenters did not identify any 
specific need or benefit from requiring this information in DOE 
reports. The Commission can revisit this issue if developments suggest 
a need.

B. Transitional Label Language

    Background: The Commission sought comment on whether to phase out 
language on refrigerator and clothes washer labels added in 2013 to 
help distinguish models tested with the current DOE procedure from 
those rated with an older version.\96\ This language, which advises 
consumers to ``Compare ONLY to other labels with yellow numbers,'' 
appears to now be obsolete and crowds the label with irrelevant 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Commenters supported an eventual shift to the original 
label but recommended the Commission wait to do so until DOE completes 
certain changes to its requirements for the affected products. 
Specifically, AHAM suggested delaying revisions to the ``transitional'' 
labels until a new DOE test procedure provides an appropriate time to 
allow a return to the ``normal'' label in a single step. In its view, 
removing the current transitional language before such a test change 
could confuse consumers, burden manufacturers, and create complications 
should any new test procedures warrant similar transitional language.
    Whirlpool agreed, stating it was unaware of any consumer complaints 
or confusion about the current label. It added upcoming changes to the 
DOE clothes washer test procedure are likely to be significant and thus 
may provide a logical time to transition to the conventional label. 
However, since the expected changes to the refrigerator/freezer test 
procedures are not as complex, Whirlpool recommended any such 
transition coincide with the amended energy conservation standards to 
minimize additional manufacturer burden. Finally, Electrolux generally 
supported reverting to the original format if manufacturer burdens are 
minimized in doing so.
    Discussion: To minimize confusion resulting from a label change, 
the Commission does not propose amending the ``transitional'' label 
language for refrigerators and clothes washers at this time. However, 
it will consider doing so when future DOE test procedures or standards 
amendments provide an appropriate time to revert to the original label 
language.

C. Range Updates

    Range and Cost Updates: A few commenters recommended the Commission 
update range and cost information more frequently. For example, NYSERDA 
urged the FTC to update the cost as often as feasible to increase 
accuracy. It also argued labels conveying estimated yearly energy costs 
calculated with a national average price from a fixed point in time are 
unlikely to accurately reflect regional consumer experience. It 
explained New York consumers, for example, living in a higher cost 
energy market, would find such labels less accurate than consumers in 
other parts of the country. In addition, Earthjustice stated the FTC 
should not permit outdated range information to persist on labels.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing the frequency 
of range and cost updates to labels. Although updates provide consumers 
with a useful estimate of a product's annual energy costs, ranges 
continue to provide a useful ``apples-to-apples'' comparison across 
products even as rates change. Moreover, range changes come with a 
downside. Specifically, they can lead to consumer confusion because 
they often result in showrooms displaying similar

[[Page 7583]]

models with the updated labels on newer units and outdated labels on 
the older ones. Increasing the frequency of updates only exacerbates 
this confusion. The Rule's current approach (the five-year update 
schedule first established in 2007) \97\ strikes a reasonable balance 
between providing consumers updated information and minimizing the 
problems associated with frequent changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Likewise, the Commission does not propose changing the national 
cost estimates on the label to provide more granular information. The 
label's annual cost disclosure provides an estimate to allow consumers 
to compare the energy consumption of competing products quickly and 
effectively. Adding information degrades the use and utility of the 
label by making it harder to use and understand. The label already 
addresses this issue by stating it only provides an estimate.

D. Compliance Dates for Ranges

    Background and Comments: Commenters also discussed the compliance 
period for future label updates. The current Rule requires 
manufacturers to implement range and cost changes within 90 days after 
issuance of updates (see Sec.  305.12).\98\ Whirlpool recommended 
expanding this period to 180 days for minor updates, such as range 
changes, because the manufacturing process for updating EnergyGuide 
labels generally takes four months. Specifically, according to 
Whirlpool, such updates involve hundreds of different part numbers in 
production at multiple locations, and therefore, draw resources away 
from other regulatory compliance efforts (e.g., retesting and 
recertification to a new DOE or ENERGY STAR requirement). In its view, 
an extension to 180 days provides the necessary time to ``appropriately 
transition labels, without pulling away resources from other critical 
energy compliance projects'' with no harm to consumers. Finally, for 
any mandatory label changes, BWC asked the FTC to ``be sensitive to the 
timing of ongoing DOE rulemakings to minimize burdens on 
manufacturers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ EPCA sets this period for implementing range and cost 
changes to 60 days, unless the Commission provides for a later date. 
42 U.S.C. 6296(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: In response to comments, the Commission proposes 
extending the transition period for label range and cost updates under 
Sec.  305.12 to 180 days. As Whirlpool explained, manufacturer and 
supply chain issues have become increasingly complex. For routine label 
updates implemented every five years, the additional transition time is 
short relative to this schedule and should have little impact on 
consumers. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, including 
whether and how it would affect consumers.

E. Updating the Television Test Data Requirements

    The Commission also proposes a minor, conforming update to the 
television reporting requirements to match the recent DOE test 
procedure for those products.\99\ Specifically, the proposed Rule would 
amend Sec.  305.11(a)(3) to require reporting the following data for 
televisions: brand name, model number, screen size, on-mode power 
consumption, standby mode power consumption, dynamic luminance, and 
annual energy consumption. This proposal would ensure manufacturers 
submit data that matches the metrics yielded by the new test procedure 
rather than obsolete data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

F. Light Bulb and Ceiling Fan Labels

    Background and Discussion: In the ANPR, the Commission sought 
comment on updating the electricity cost disclosure on the Lighting 
Facts and ceiling fan labels to reflect recent DOE national estimates. 
Commenters provided differing views on such changes. Earthjustice, for 
example, generally recommended updates for these products to avoid 
misleading consumers with outdated information. In contrast, NEMA, an 
association representing lighting manufacturers, recommended against 
changing the electricity cost information underlying the Lighting Facts 
because of the potential confusion resulting from a change. In 
addition, NEMA noted that because of the nature of the sales process 
and supply chain for lighting products, it would be ``impossible to 
assure all comparable product packaging reflects an updated electricity 
cost disclosure.'' Thus, in NEMA's view, such a change would create 
misleading inconsistencies among competing products as the label 
transition occurs.
    The American Lighting Association (``ALA'') also opposed a change, 
for lighting as well as ceiling fans, noting it would create 
significant burdens for manufacturers. If the FTC chooses to update the 
light bulb labels, ALA urged allowing a rolling change over 36-months, 
which would be consistent with other Federal agencies and would give 
manufacturers the lead time necessary to make package changes. 
Similarly, Madison IAQ did not recommend the Commission change the 
ceiling fan labels. Should the Commission make changes, BAF, without 
explanation, recommended ``replacing the weighted average airflow and 
power numbers with airflow at high speed and power at high speed.'' In 
addition, Madison IAQ recommended renaming Airflow Efficiency to 
Average Airflow Efficiency since it is an average value.
    Discussion: As discussed below, the Commission does not propose 
changes to lighting labels at this time. On balance, the problems 
associated with changing the vast array of light bulb packages on the 
market, including potential consumer confusion during the transition 
and the burdens of such a change, likely outweigh the benefits 
associated with updated cost numbers. The Lighting Facts label 
primarily benefits consumers by helping them compare the relative 
energy costs of similar models, not by providing their actual energy 
costs. The current label will continue to provide this benefit without 
changes. In addition, given the relatively low energy cost of most 
light bulbs and small energy cost difference, the benefits to 
individual consumers from updating the cost figure are likely to be 
lower than with other products. However, the Commission will continue 
to monitor changes in average electricity costs and will consider 
whether to provide future updates to these labels. Should the 
Commission require a new cost figure, it will consider providing 
manufacturers an adequate compliance period given the burdens involved 
with changing the large number of different lighting packages.
    The Commission, however, proposes to require updating the energy 
cost information, as well as the range information, for ceiling fans by 
including them in the regular five-year schedule for label costs and 
range updates in Sec.  305.12. Unlike the Lighting Facts label, ceiling 
fan labels contain a range of comparability, thus making regular 
updates to the label information likely more useful to consumers. 
Further, there are generally fewer ceiling fan products on the market 
compared to lamps, making the burden for label changes likely lower. 
Although ceiling fan labels feature energy cost and comparability range 
information as required by EPCA, the Rule currently does not specify an 
update schedule for that information. Accordingly, the proposal would 
include ceiling fans in the Rule's routine 5-year update schedule for 
the range and cost information to ensure regular range updates for 
those products. Consistent with other products bearing labels on 
packages, the Commission will seek to

[[Page 7584]]

set compliance dates for the next scheduled update in 2027 to minimize 
disruption to manufacturers' normal production schedules. Finally, the 
Commission does not propose changing the content of the label because 
commenters have not provided evidence of the need for such changes.

G. Categorical Ranking System

    NYSERDA suggested the Commission consider categorical rankings on 
the label (for example ``good,'' ``better,'' ``best'') to bring ``a 
more holistic energy efficiency perspective, especially for product 
categories that do not already have an ENERGY STAR marking.'' In 2007, 
the Commission considered such a rating system after conducting 
consumer research. That research demonstrated the operating cost design 
performs well on objective tasks (e.g., ranking by energy use), and the 
research participants identified the design as the most useful method 
for communicating energy information. Thus, the Commission rejected a 
categorical disclosure.\100\ The record provides no compelling reason 
to revisit this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

H. Bilingual Information

    Background: Under the current Rule, manufacturers may provide 
bilingual information in the form of an additional label or in separate 
point-of-purchase materials. However, the Rule only provides guidance 
on providing bilingual information, including guidance on content and 
format of bilingual labels, to manufacturers of lighting products.\101\ 
The ANPR sought input on whether the Rule should offer similar guidance 
for other products and whether other improvements are warranted to help 
non-English speaking consumers with their purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 16 CFR 305.23(b)(6) and 16 CFR 305.23(c)(4) (label 
information may be presented in a second language either by using 
separate labels for each language or in a bilingual label with the 
English text in the format required by this section immediately 
followed by the text in the second language).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: A few commenters offered suggestions. For example, 
NYSERDA urged the FTC to provide bilingual guidance across product 
categories to help manufacturers prepare information in multiple 
languages to communicate with a broader set of consumers. It also 
suggested that the FTC help encourage multiple language labeling 
through guidance on the use of a QR code or similar mechanism to allow 
consumers faced with paper labels in English to access information in 
their preferred languages. In contrast, Rheem, which already prepares 
Spanish and French versions of product literature, expressed concerns 
that any bilingual requirements ``will become overly burdensome and 
misdirected.'' It recommended the FTC leave decisions about such 
literature to the manufacturer's discretion.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose changing existing Rule 
provisions related to bilingual labels because it lacks evidence 
specific label content amendments (e.g., a dedicated QR code) are 
necessary to help manufacturers and retailers communicate information 
to non-English speakers. Commenters have not provided any evidence non-
English speakers find it impractical to use the labels' key 
disclosures, which are primarily numeric (e.g., annual energy cost in 
dollars), to compare products. However, consistent with the comments, 
the FTC staff will explore creating additional guidance to better 
convey the label's information to non-English speakers. The Commission 
invites commenters to address what guidance would be helpful to 
consumers, manufacturers, and retailers. Additionally, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether and how mobile translation applications may 
help consumers understand labels.

I. Coordination With Other Agencies

    Background and Comments: Several commenters urged the Commission to 
coordinate future label changes with Canadian regulators and the FTC's 
sister agencies. NEMA, for example, raised concerns that a recent 
Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') proposal conflicted with the FTC's 
Lighting Facts labeling requirements, and therefore, could cause 
confusion in the North American marketplace.\102\ NEMA suggested 
coordination between the FTC and NRCan might reduce consumer confusion 
and avoid prohibitive financial burdens and the potential environmental 
costs of changing packaging. AHAM and Whirlpool also urged the FTC to 
harmonize activities with NRCan because ``changes to one label 
impact[s] the other.'' According to Whirlpool, the need for cooperation 
with Canada is paramount because the U.S. and Canadian markets often 
comprise an integrated supply chain. In its view, misalignment in 
labeling location, format, content, and timing can pose significant 
burdens for manufacturers and cause confusion for retailers and 
consumers. Given these realities, Whirlpool noted manufacturers 
generally use a side-by-side U.S. and Canada energy label, or a front-
to-back configuration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/energy-efficiency-regulations/general-service-lamps/24407.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also urged the FTC to increase its coordination with DOE 
and EPA. For example, Whirlpool recommended the FTC ``make every 
attempt to align the compliance dates of any EnergyGuide label 
amendments'' with changes to DOE test procedures and efficiency 
standards, and EPA ENERGY STAR program requirements. Specifically, 
Whirlpool urged the FTC to wait to implement significant changes to the 
EnergyGuide labels until the compliance dates for the amended energy 
conservation and ENERGY STAR requirements.
    Discussion: The Commission agrees cooperation with other Federal, 
State, and international agencies is important for ensuring consistency 
in labeling requirements where appropriate. The FTC staff will continue 
to communicate and coordinate with DOE, NRCan, and other appropriate 
agencies on issues relevant to the FTC labeling rules. The Commission 
also encourages industry members and other interested parties to alert 
FTC staff to any relevant developments involving such agencies.

J. Prescriptive Requirements

    Background: In the ANPR, the Commission sought comments on any 
prescriptive requirements (e.g., type size and style, label size, 
number of picas, paper weight, and label attachment provisions) in the 
Rule that are unnecessarily burdensome.
    Comments: Commenters provided several suggestions to eliminate 
unnecessarily prescriptive requirements. Daiken, for example, 
recommended several specific label changes. First, for trim size 
dimensions under Sec.  305.20(a), it recommended the FTC specify only 
minimum dimensions rather than a range of widths and lengths, and 
specify whole number minimums (e.g., 7 inches for the length as opposed 
to 7 \3/8\ inches). Second, it recommended allowing smaller labels for 
some products. Third, it recommended eliminating provisions in Sec.  
305.20(a) related to picas, centering, and depth, as well as 
requirements about type style and setting in Sec.  305.20(b) because, 
in its view, they do not benefit consumers. Finally, Daiken argued the 
Commission should eliminate the paper stock weight and adhesive 
application rates requirements in Sec.  305.20(d) because they are 
unnecessarily prescriptive. Crown, a boiler manufacturer, agreed, 
stating that ``label weight and material are irrelevant

[[Page 7585]]

as long as the existing durability requirements are met.'' \103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See also The Marley Company comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The Commission proposes eliminating several 
prescriptive requirements that likely serve little purpose because they 
are either obsolete or already addressed by other Rule provisions. 
Specifically, the proposed amendments eliminate requirements related to 
picas, depth, specific paper weights, and position (see, e.g., Sec.  
305.13).
    These requirements provide little benefit beyond those already 
provided by other provisions in the Rule. For example, under this 
proposal, the Rule would continue to require a uniform appearance 
(fonts, font sizes, text placement, etc.) to ensure consumers recognize 
the label and are able to easily use it to make comparisons. For labels 
affixed to products, the proposal continues to require the adhesion 
capacity and paper stock be sufficient to prevent their dislodgment 
during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution to the 
retailer or consumer. These provisions should continue to ensure labels 
are uniform and sufficiently durable to remain on covered products.

K. Online Label Requirements

    Background and Comments: The California IOUs suggested the FTC 
consider providing additional guidance for retailers regarding the 
online placement of display labels, particularly regarding their 
proximity to other product information. The current Rule requires 
disclosures to ``appear clearly and conspicuously and in close 
proximity to the covered product's price.'' \104\ California IOUs 
asserted the ``close proximity'' language is ambiguous. They observed 
online retailers display the EnergyGuide information in a way that 
requires consumers to manually expand the supplemental section to view 
the link to the label. Therefore, they recommended the FTC ``guide 
online retailers to display the EnergyGuide label as the second in the 
series of product images to increase its prominence.'' \105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 16 CFR 305.27.
    \105\ Other commenters shared experiences indicating they may 
benefit from clarifying the ``close proximity'' requirement for 
online labels. One commenter (Ring) stated they rely on online 
research to narrow their choices before visiting stores. Another 
(DuSaint) stated he found online comparison shopping for appliances 
to be generally helpful, other than in situations where appliances 
require immediate replacement through a visit to a physical store. 
Merriam also argued the energy labels ``should be clearly and 
consistently included in product pictures for online retailers'' but 
did not specify any changes to the existing online ``catalog'' 
requirements in the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: In response to these comments, the Commission proposes 
to amend the online label requirements to state that manufacturers 
posting the label or label link online in ``close proximity'' to the 
price must ensure that label or link itself is readily and immediately 
visible to the consumer. Further, the Commission proposes adding 
language to Sec.  305.27 clarifying that, if an online seller uses an 
expandable image of the label (e.g., ``thumbnail'' photographs in a 
series of product-related images) or clickable icon to comply with the 
Rule, that image or icon must be visible to the consumer without any 
additional scrolling, clicking, or other similar actions. These 
requirements should ensure online sellers cannot hide the EnergyGuide 
label in a long series of product photographs without imposing 
prescriptive requirements that could stifle innovation as online sales 
platforms continue to evolve.

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 
reporting requirements that constitute information collection 
requirements as defined by the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').\106\ 
Under the PRA, an agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of 
information, nor may it impose an information collection requirement, 
unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget 
(``OMB'') control number. OMB has approved the Rule's existing 
information collection requirements through February 29, 2024 (OMB 
Control No. 3084-0069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed amendments include new labeling requirements for air 
cleaners, clothes dryers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, and 
portable electric spas (collectively referred below as ``new labeled 
products'') that constitute information collections under the PRA. The 
proposed amendments also contain requirements which reduce the 
manufacturers' burden associated with labeling certain appliances and 
increase the burden for retailers by requiring them to ensure displayed 
products bear labels. Accordingly, the Commission is seeking OMB 
clearance specific to the Rule amendments.\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The PRA analysis for this rulemaking focuses strictly on 
the information collection requirements created by and/or otherwise 
affected by the amendments. Unaffected information collection 
provisions have previously been accounted for in past FTC analyses 
under the Rule and are covered by the current PRA clearance from 
OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden estimates below are based on Census data, DOE figures and 
estimates, public comments, the agency's general knowledge of 
manufacturing practices, and trade association advice and figures. FTC 
staff estimates that there are 100 manufacturers producing 5,000 basic 
models (i.e., units with essentially identical physical and electrical 
characteristics) of the proposed new products (air cleaners--700; 
clothes dryers--1,700; miscellaneous refrigeration products--1,100; 
portable electric spas--1,500).
    Reporting: The Rule requires manufacturers of covered products to 
annually submit a report for each current model containing the same 
information that must be submitted to the DOE pursuant to 10 CFR part 
429. In lieu of submitting the required information to the Commission, 
manufacturers may submit such information to DOE directly via the 
agency's Compliance Certification Management System, available at 
https://regulations.doe.gov/ccms, as provided by 10 CFR 429.12. Because 
manufacturers are already required to submit these reports to DOE, FTC 
staff estimates any additional burden associated with providing the 
information to the FTC is minimal. FTC staff estimates the average 
reporting burden for manufacturers of the proposed new products will be 
approximately 15 hours per manufacturer. Based on this estimate, the 
annual reporting burden for manufacturers of new labeled products is 
1,500 hours (15 hours x 100 manufacturers). Staff estimates that 
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\108\ will 
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor 
cost of $28,455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ These labor cost estimates are derived from the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS'') figures in ``Table 1. National employment 
and wage data from the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics 
survey by occupation, May 2022,'' available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Manufacturer Labeling: The amendments require that manufacturers 
create labels for the four new labeled product categories. Since EPCA 
and the Rule specify the content and format for the required labels, 
and FTC staff provide online label templates, manufacturers need only 
input the energy consumption figures and other product-specific 
information derived from testing. FTC staff estimates the time to 
incorporate the required information into labels and label-covered 
products is five hours per basic model. Accordingly, staff estimates 
the approximate annual burden involved in creating labels for covered 
products is

[[Page 7586]]

25,000 hours [5,000 basic models x 5 hours]. Staff estimates that 
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\109\ will 
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor 
cost of $474,250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed Rule would also require manufacturers to affix labels 
to shipped clothes dryers, miscellaneous refrigeration products 
(``MREFs''), and portable electric spas (estimates include MREFs at 
3,000,000; dryers at 8,000,000).\110\ For dryers and MREFs (11,000,000 
units), the burden would only apply to units designated as showroom 
models, which FTC estimates will account for about 0.2% of shipped 
models. Consistent with past estimates, the FTC estimates it takes 4 
seconds for a manufacturer to affix a label for showroom display. 
Accordingly, staff estimates the burden for affixing labels on these 
new products will be 24 hours (22,000 units x 4 seconds). Staff 
estimates that information processing staff, at an hourly rate of 
$18.97, will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated 
annual labor cost of $455.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ As discussed in this Notice, the Commission has not 
proposed a specific labeling method for portable electric spas and 
is seeking comment on that issue. The estimate here assumes spa 
labels will appear on packaging and thus will not create the type of 
incremental burden posed by labels affixed separately to the product 
(e.g., labels for appliances such as refrigerators). Staff estimates 
annual shipments of these products are about 500,000. Should 
labeling for these products be finalized and impose a different 
burden, estimates will be updated depending on the final labeling 
method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the proposal would relax label attachment requirements 
for refrigerators and freezers, dishwashers, and clothes washers by 
allowing manufacturers to ship an unaffixed label with most units 
(about 24 million units). The FTC estimates the reduction in burden 
from this proposed change to be 26,667 hours (24,000,000 x 4 seconds).
    Thus, the estimated burden on manufacturers from the proposed 
amendments would be a net reduction of 143 hours ([1,500 (reporting) + 
25,000 (labeling) + 24 (affixing labels)] - 26,667]).
    Retailer Showroom Labeling: The proposed Rule would require 
retailers to ensure that refrigerator products, dishwashers, clothes 
washers, and clothes dryers displayed in showrooms bear a label. FTC 
staff estimates there are about 14,000 showroom appliance stores in the 
U.S. and that stores on average display about 50 labeled products per 
year. Out of these, the FTC estimates 20% of those showroom models will 
require retailers to locate the label in the box and affix it to a 
product, which will take about five minutes per display model. Most 
showroom units will already be labeled by manufacturers and thus 
require no action by the retailer. Accordingly, the estimated total 
burden is 11,667 hours (50 units x .20 x 14,000 x 5 minutes). Staff 
estimates that retail sales staff, at an hourly rate of $15.62,\111\ 
will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual 
labor cost of $182,239.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing: Manufacturers of the new labeled products must test each 
basic model they produce to determine energy usage, but the majority of 
tests conducted are required by DOE rules. As a result, it is likely 
only a small portion of the tests conducted are attributable to the 
Rule's requirements. In addition, manufacturers need not subject each 
basic model to testing annually; they must retest only if the product 
design changes in such a way as to affect energy consumption. FTC staff 
estimates that 25% of all basic models are tested annually because of 
the Rule's requirements. Accordingly, the estimated annual testing 
burden for new labeled products is 15,400 hours.\112\ Staff estimates 
that engineering technicians, at an hourly rate of $30.95, will 
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated annual labor 
cost of $476,630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ The FTC has applied different test hour burdens depending 
on the product: air cleaners--700 basic models x 0.25 x 40 hours = 
7,000 hours; clothes dryers--1,700 basic models x 0.25 x 4 hours = 
1,700 hours; portable electric spas--1500 basic models x 0.25 x 12 
hours = 4,500 hours; MREFs--1,100 basic models x 0.25 x 8 hours = 
2,200 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Online Label Posting: The proposal would require manufacturers to 
post images of their EnergyGuide labels online for the new labeled 
products. Staff estimates the burden associated with this requirement 
based on the number of models of covered products. Given approximately 
5,000 total models at an estimated five minutes per model, staff 
estimates that this requirement entails a burden of 417 hours (5,000 
basic models x 5 minutes). Staff estimates that information processing 
staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\113\ will typically perform the 
required tasks, for an estimated annual labor cost of $7,910.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recordkeeping: The Rule also requires manufacturers of covered 
products to retain records of test data generated in performing the 
tests to derive information included on labels.\114\ The FTC estimates 
the annual recordkeeping burden for manufacturers of new labeled 
products will be approximately one minute per basic model to store 
relevant data. Accordingly, the estimated annual recordkeeping burden 
would be approximately 83 hours (5,000 basic models x one minute). 
Staff estimates that information processing staff, at an hourly rate of 
$18.97, will typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated 
annual labor cost of $1,575.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ See 16 CFR 305.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Online and Retail Catalog Disclosures: Staff estimates there are 
approximately 400 sellers of new labeled product categories who are 
subject to the Rule's catalog disclosure requirements. Staff has 
previously estimated covered online and catalog sellers spend 
approximately 17 hours per year to incorporate relevant product data 
for products that are currently covered by the Rule. Staff estimates 
the requirements for new labeled product categories will add an 
additional 4 hours per year in incremental burden per seller. Staff 
estimates these additions will result in an incremental burden of 1,600 
hours (400 sellers x 4 hours annually). Staff estimates that 
information processing staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,\115\ will 
typically perform the required tasks, for an estimated incremental 
annual labor cost of $30,352.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ BLS, supra n.108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated annual non-labor cost burden: Staff anticipates that 
manufacturers are not likely to require any significant capital costs 
to comply with the amendments.

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \116\ requires that the 
Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of 
the proposed amendment on small entities. The RFA requires that the 
Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(``IRFA'') with a proposed rule, and a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (``FRFA'') with a final rule, if any, unless the Commission 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.\117\ While the Commission 
recognizes that some of the affected manufacturers and retailers may 
qualify as small businesses under the relevant thresholds as determined 
by the Small Business Administration, it does not anticipate a 
substantial number of these small entities will face a significant 
burden under the proposed

[[Page 7587]]

rule. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission 
certifies that amending the Rules as proposed will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \117\ 5 U.S.C. 605. The proposed conforming changes to central 
air conditioner descriptors will have no impact on the Rule's 
current burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission estimates the amendments will apply to 400 online 
and paper catalog sellers of covered products, about 100 product 
manufacturers, and approximately 14,000 retail appliance stores. The 
Commission expects that approximately 5,150 of these various entities 
qualify as small businesses (5,000 of which are appliance stores). More 
details about these small entities can be found under section C below.
    Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business 
Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the 
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests 
comment on whether the proposed rule will have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, including specific information 
on the number of entities that would be covered by the proposed rule, 
the number of these companies that are small entities, and the average 
annual burden for each entity. Although the Commission concludes under 
the RFA that the proposed amendments to the Rule in this notice would 
not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on the affected small 
entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that it is 
appropriate to publish an IRFA in order to inquire into the impact of 
the proposed rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has 
prepared the following analysis:

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

    As explained in more detail above, the Commission is proposing 
expanded product coverage and additional improvements to the Rule to 
help consumers in their purchasing decisions of consumer products.

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

    The objective of the proposed Rule is to improve the effectiveness 
of the current labeling program by providing energy information for 
additional product categories and improving existing labels. The legal 
basis for the Rule is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6292 et seq.).

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small 
Business Administration, appliance manufacturers qualify as small 
businesses if they have fewer than 1,500 employees. Catalog sellers 
qualify as small businesses (miscellaneous retailers) if their sales 
are less than $11.5 million annually. Retail appliances firms qualify 
if their annual receipts are $40 million or less. The Commission 
estimates that there are approximately 150 online sellers and 5,000 
appliance retailers that are both subject to the proposed Rule's 
requirements and qualify as small businesses.\118\ The Commission seeks 
comment and information regarding the estimated number and nature of 
small business entities for which the proposed Rule would have a 
significant economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The changes under consideration would increase reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements associated with the new labeled products 
proposed in this Notice (i.e., air cleaners, clothes dryers, 
miscellaneous refrigerator products, and portable electric spas). The 
amendments also contain compliance requirements for appliance retailers 
to ensure that units placed on showroom floors have labels. More 
details on these reporting, disclosure and recordkeeping requirements 
can be found under (IX) Paperwork Reduction Act.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission has not identified any other Federal statutes, 
rules, or policies that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed Rule. During this proceeding, FTC staff has consulted with DOE 
staff and other agencies on the issues addressed in this Notice. The 
Commission invites comment and information on this issue.

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, 
for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory 
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on small 
entities. The Commission has already taken steps to reduce the economic 
impact of the Rule in this NPRM. The Commission considered but did not 
adopt a proposal to impose an additional requirement for manufacturers 
to include IMEF information on labels for clothes washers. The 
Commission also solicited comments on alternatives to the current 
``showroom-ready'' approach for affixing labels. Further, in proposing 
new requirements, the Commission considered ways to minimize retailer 
burden, including providing flexibility for label materials and 
attachment methods, requiring manufacturers to ship labels in a 
``showroom ready'' state for designated floor models, allowing 
retailers to use existing electronic labels accessed through DOE's 
website, and ensuring retailers have adequate time to comply with any 
new requirements. The Commission considered electronic labeling. The 
Commission is also seeking comment on how with DOE, the agencies might 
create online consumer resources to provide FFC and/or GHG information 
for individual covered products, in lieu of requiring such information 
on the EnergyGuide labels. The Commission is currently unaware of the 
need to adopt any special provisions for small entities. However, if 
such issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative 
approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for 
online and retail sellers to allow them additional time to comply 
beyond the labeling deadline set for manufacturers. If the comments 
filed in response to this Notice identify small entities that are 
affected by the proposed Rule, as well as alternative methods of 
compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the Rule on such 
entities, the Commission will consider the feasibility of such 
alternatives and determine whether they should be incorporated into the 
final Rule.

XI. Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider 
your comment, we must receive it on or before April 2, 2024. Write 
``Energy Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305) (Matter No. R611004)'' on your 
comment. Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal 
mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. As a result, 
we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the 
https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure that the Commission 
considers your online comment, please follow the instructions on the 
web-based form. Your comment--including your name and your State--will 
be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the 
https://

[[Page 7588]]

www.regulations.gov website. As a matter of discretion, the Commission 
tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments 
before placing them on https://www.regulations.gov.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Energy Labeling Rule (16 
CFR part 305) (Matter No. R611004)'' on your comment and on the 
envelope, and mail it to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail 
Stop H-144 (Annex L), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, submit your 
paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
    Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible 
website at www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making 
sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential 
information. In particular, your comment should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social 
Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include 
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment 
should not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial 
information which . . . is privileged or confidential''--as provided by 
section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including competitively sensitive information such 
as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, 
manufacturing processes, or customer names.
    Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is 
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 
In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that 
accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to 
be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment 
will be kept confidential only if the General Counsel grants your 
request in accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your 
comment has been posted publicly at www.regulations.gov, we cannot 
redact or remove your comment unless you submit a confidentiality 
request that meets the requirements for such treatment under FTC Rule 
4.9(c), and the General Counsel grants that request.
    Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release 
describing it, and visit https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FTC-2024-0008 to read a plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The FTC Act 
and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of 
public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. 
The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments 
that it receives on or before April 2, 2024. For information on the 
Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.
    Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of 
all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an opportunity 
for presentation of oral comments regarding these proposed amendments. 
Interested parties may request an opportunity to present oral data, 
views, and comments on the proposed amendments. If such a request is 
made, the Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing 
the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to 
present oral views must submit a request, on or before March 18, 2024, 
in the form of a written comment that describes the issues on which the 
party wishes to speak. If no oral presentations are scheduled, the 
Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record.

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

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be 
placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

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

    For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes to amend 16 
CFR part 305 as follows:

PART 305--ENERGY AND WATER USE LABELING FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS UNDER 
THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (``ENERGY LABELING RULE'')

0
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6294.

0
2. Amend Sec.  305.2 by redesignating paragraph (l)(24) as paragraph 
(l)(27), adding new paragraphs (l)(24), (l)(25), and (l)(26), and 
revising paragraph (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (24) Room air cleaners.
    (25) Miscellaneous refrigeration products.
    (26) Portable electric spas.
* * * * *
    (p) Energy efficiency rating means the following product-specific 
energy usage descriptors: Annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) for 
furnaces; combined energy efficiency ratio (CEER) for room and portable 
air conditioners; seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) for the 
cooling function of central air conditioners and heat pumps; heating 
seasonal performance factor 2 (HSPF2) for the heating function of heat 
pumps; airflow efficiency for ceiling fans; combined energy factor 
(CEF) for clothes dryers; Integrated Energy Factor (``IEF'') for air 
cleaners; and, thermal efficiency (TE) for pool heaters, as these 
descriptors are determined in accordance with tests prescribed under 
section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293). These product-specific energy 
usage descriptors shall be used in satisfying all the requirements of 
this part.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  305.3 by adding paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  305.3  Description of appliances and consumer electronics.

* * * * *
    (k) Room air cleaner means an air cleaner that--
    (1) Is a portable or wall mounted (fixed) unit, excluding ceiling 
mounted unit, that plugs into an electrical outlet;
    (2) Operates with a fan for air circulation; and
    (3) Contains means to remove, destroy, and/or deactivate 
particulates.
    The term portable is as defined in section 2.1.3.1 of AHAM AC-7-
2022, and the term fixed is as defined in section 2.1.3.2 of AHAM AC-7-
2022.
    (l) Clothes dryer means a cabinet-like appliance designed to dry 
fabrics in a

[[Page 7589]]

tumble-type drum with forced air circulation. The heat source is either 
gas or electricity, and the drum and blower(s) are driven by an 
electric motor(s).
    (m) Miscellaneous refrigeration product means a consumer 
refrigeration product other than a refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 
or freezer, which includes coolers and combination cooler refrigeration 
products.
    (n) Portable electric spa means a factory-built electric spa or hot 
tub, supplied with equipment for heating and circulating water at the 
time of sale or sold separately for subsequent attachment.
0
4. Revise Sec.  305.9 to read as follows:


Sec.  305.9  Duty to provide labels on websites and to retailers.

    (a) For each covered product required by this part to bear an 
EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label, the manufacturer must make a copy 
of the label available on a publicly accessible website in a manner 
that allows catalog sellers to hyperlink to the label or download it 
for use in websites or paper catalogs. The label for each specific 
model must remain on the website for six months after production of 
that model ceases.
    (b) For refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, miscellaneous 
refrigeration products, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, and 
clothes dryers, manufacturers must provide a copy of the label required 
by this part to a retailer upon request of that retailer, in a form 
requested by the retailer, such as physical or electronic.
0
5. Amend Sec.  305.10 by revising paragraph (h) and adding paragraphs 
(m), (n), (o), and (p) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.10  Determinations of capacity.

* * * * *
    (h) Furnaces (including boilers). The capacity shall be the heating 
capacity in Btu's per hour, rounded to the nearest 1,000 Btu's per 
hour, as determined according to appendices N and EE to 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, as applicable.
* * * * *
    (m) Room air cleaners: The capacity shall be the effective room 
size according to10 CFR parts 429 and 430, subpart B, with rounding 
determined in accordance with 10 CFR part 430.
    (n) Clothes dryers: The capacity shall be the drum capacity as 
determined according to Department of Energy test procedures in 10 CFR 
part 430, subpart B, expressed in terms of ``Capacity (tub volume)'' in 
cubic feet, rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a cubic foot, and the 
capacity class designations ``standard'' or ``compact.''
    (o) Miscellaneous refrigeration product: The capacity shall be the 
total refrigerated volume (VT) in cubic feet, rounded to the nearest 
one-tenth of a cubic foot, as determined according to appendix A to 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B.
    (p) Portable Electric Spa: The capacity shall be the fill volume, 
which means the volume of water held by the portable electric spa when 
it is filled as specified in appendix GG to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B.
0
6. Amend Sec.  305.11 by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  305.11  Submission of data.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Manufacturers of televisions shall submit annually a report 
containing the brand name; model number; screen size (diagonal in 
inches); on mode power consumption, standby mode power consumption; 
dynamic luminance; and annual energy consumption (kWh/year) for each 
basic model in current production. The report should also include a 
starting serial number, date code, or other means of identifying the 
date of manufacture with the first submission for each basic model. In 
lieu of submitting the required information to the Commission as 
required by this section, manufacturers may submit such information to 
the Department of Energy via the Compliance and Certification 
Management System (CCMS) at https://regulations.doe.gov/ccms as 
provided by 10 CFR 429.12.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) All data required by paragraph (a) of this section except 
serial numbers shall be submitted to the Commission annually, on or 
before the following dates:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Deadline
                      Product category                         for data
                                                              submission
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerators..............................................      Aug. 1.
Refrigerators-freezers.....................................      Aug. 1.
Freezers...................................................      Aug. 1.
Miscellaneous refrigeration products.......................      Aug. 1.
Central air conditioners...................................      July 1.
Heat pumps.................................................      July 1.
Dishwashers................................................      June 1.
Water heaters..............................................       May 1.
Room air conditioners......................................      July 1.
Portable air conditioners..................................      Feb. 1.
Room air cleaners..........................................      Dec. 1.
Furnaces...................................................       May 1.
Pool heaters...............................................       May 1.
Portable Electric Spas.....................................         TBD.
Clothes washers............................................      Oct. 1.
Clothes dryers.............................................      Oct. 1.
Fluorescent lamp ballasts..................................      Mar. 1.
Showerheads................................................      Mar. 1.
Faucets....................................................      Mar. 1.
Water closets..............................................      Mar. 1.
Ceiling fans...............................................      Mar. 1.
Urinals....................................................      Mar. 1.
Metal halide lamp fixtures.................................     Sept. 1.
General service fluorescent lamps..........................      Mar. 1.
Medium base compact fluorescent lamps......................      Mar. 1.
General service incandescent lamps.........................      Mar. 1.
Televisions................................................      June 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  305.12 by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  305.12  Ranges of comparability on the required labels.

    (a) Range of estimated annual energy costs or energy efficiency 
ratings. The range of estimated annual operating costs or energy 
efficiency ratings for each covered product (except televisions, 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, lamps, metal halide lamp fixtures, 
showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals) shall be taken from 
the appropriate appendix to this part in effect at the time the labels 
are affixed to the product. The Commission shall publish revised ranges 
in the Federal Register in 2027. When the ranges are revised, all 
information disseminated after 180 days following the publication of 
the revision shall conform to the revised ranges. Products that have 
been labeled prior to the effective date of a modification under this 
section need not be relabeled.
    (b) Representative average unit energy cost. The Representative 
Average Unit Energy Cost to be used on labels as required by Sec. Sec.  
305.14 through 305.19 and disclosures as required by Sec.  305.27 are 
listed in appendices K1 and K2 to this part. The Commission shall 
publish revised Representative Average Unit Energy Cost figures in the 
Federal Register in 2027. When the cost figures are revised, all 
information disseminated after 180 days following the publication of 
the revision shall conform to the new cost figure.
* * * * *
0
8. Revise Sec.  305.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  305.13  Layout, format, and placement of labels for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration 
products, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes dryers, water 
heaters, room air conditioners, portable air conditioners, room air 
cleaners, portable electric spas, and pool heaters.

    (a) Coverage. The requirements of this section apply to labels for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,

[[Page 7590]]

miscellaneous refrigeration products, dishwashers, clothes washers, 
clothes dryers, water heaters, room air conditioners, portable air 
conditioners, room air cleaners, portable electric spas, and pool 
heaters.
    (b) Layout. Energy labels shall use one size, similar colors, and 
typefaces with consistent positioning of headline, copy, and charts to 
maintain uniformity for immediate consumer recognition and readability. 
With the exception of instantaneous water heaters, trim size dimensions 
for the labels shall be as follows: Width must be between 5\1/4\ inches 
and 5\1/2\ inches (13.34 cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between 
7\3/8\ inches (18.73 cm.) and 7\5/8\ (19.37 cm.). Labels for 
instantaneous water heaters may be as small as a 3\3/4\ inches (9.53 
cm.) in width and 4\7/8\ inches (12.38 cm.) in length. All positioning, 
spacing, type sizes, and line widths should be similar to and 
consistent with the prototype and sample labels in appendix L to this 
part.
    (c) Type style and setting. The Arial Narrow series typeface or 
equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific sizes and 
faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels. No hyphenation 
should be used in setting headline or copy text. Positioning and 
spacing should follow the prototypes closely. See the prototype labels 
for specific directions.
    (d) Colors. Except as indicated in paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section, the basic colors of all labels covered by this section shall 
be process yellow or equivalent and process black. The label shall be 
printed full bleed process yellow. All type and graphics shall be print 
process black.
    (e) Label types. Except as indicated in paragraphs (e)(3) and 
(e)(4) of this section, the labels must be affixed to the product in 
the form of an adhesive label for any product covered by this section, 
or in the form of a hang tag for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, dishwashers, clothes 
washers, and clothes dryers as follows:
    (1) Adhesive labels. All adhesive labels should be applied so they 
can be easily removed without the use of tools or liquids, other than 
water. The adhesion capacity and paper stock should be sufficient to 
prevent their dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain 
of distribution to the retailer or consumer. In lieu of a label with 
adhesive backing, manufacturers may adhere the label with adhesive 
tape, provided the tape is affixed along the entire top and bottom of 
the label.
    (2) Hang tags. Labels may be affixed to the product interior in the 
form of a hang tag using cable ties or double strings connected through 
reinforced punch holes, or with attachment and label material of 
equivalent or greater strength and durability. If paper stock is used 
for hang tags, it shall have a basic weight sufficient to prevent 
dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution 
to the retailer or consumer. When materials are used to attach the hang 
tags to appliance products, the materials shall be of sufficient 
strength to ensure that if gradual pressure is applied to the hang tag 
by pulling it away from where it is affixed to the product, the hang 
tag will tear before the material used to affix the hang tag to the 
product breaks.
    (3) Package labels for certain products. Labels for electric and 
gas instantaneous water heaters shall be printed on or affixed to the 
product's packaging in a conspicuous location. Labels for room air 
conditioners, portable air conditioners, air cleaners, and portable 
electric spas shall be printed on or affixed to the principal display 
panel of the product's packaging. The labels for electric and gas 
instantaneous water heaters, room air conditioners, room air cleaners, 
and portable air conditioners shall be black type and graphics on a 
process yellow or other neutral contrasting background.
    (4) Non-Showroom Designated Appliances: For refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, miscellaneous refrigeration products, 
dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers not designated by 
manufacturers as showroom display units or otherwise shipped by 
manufacturers with point of purchase material intended for retail or 
showroom display, manufacturers may include the label with the unit 
consistent with the requirements of paragraph (f)(3) of this section. 
Such labels must be printed on paper stock but need not comply with the 
specific requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section.
    (f) Placement--
    (1) Adhesive labels. Manufacturers shall affix adhesive labels to 
the covered products in such a position that it is easily read by a 
consumer examining the product. The label should be generally located 
on the upper-right-front corner of the product's front exterior. 
However, some other prominent location may be used as long as the label 
will not become dislodged during normal handling throughout the chain 
of distribution to the retailer or consumer. The label can be displayed 
in the form of a flap tag adhered to the top of the appliance and bent 
(folded at 90[deg]) to hang over the front, as long as this can be done 
with assurance that it will be readily visible.
    (2) Hang tags. A hang tag shall be affixed to the interior of the 
product in such a position that it can be easily read by a consumer 
examining the product. A hang tag can be affixed in any position that 
meets this requirement as long as the label will not become dislodged 
during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution to the 
retailer or consumer. Hang tags may only be affixed in refrigerators, 
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, 
dishwashers, clothes washers, and clothes dryers.
    (3) Non-Showroom-Designated Appliance Labels. Labels for units 
covered by paragraph (e)(4) of this section must be shipped with the 
product in a location readily visible to retailers and consumers 
examining the contents of the product's packaging.
    (g) Retailer Responsibilities. Retailers who choose to display any 
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, miscellaneous refrigerator 
product, dishwasher, clothes washer, and clothes dryer must ensure the 
model's EnergyGuide label is affixed to the product in a location 
easily visible to a consumer examining the product.
0
9. Amend Sec.  305.14 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(a)(9)(iv) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.14  Label content for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
freezers, and miscellaneous refrigeration products.

    (a) * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iv) Labels for freezers and miscellaneous refrigeration products 
must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in 
appendix L and specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the 
appropriate energy cost figure):
    Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use.
    [For freezers, insert statement required by paragraph (a)(10)(v) of 
this section. For miscellaneous refrigeration products, add the 
following statement: Cost range based on models of similar size 
capacity.].
    Estimated energy cost based on a national average electricity cost 
of __cents per kWh.
    ftc.gov/energy.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  305.15 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:

[[Page 7591]]

Sec.  305.15  Label content for clothes washers and clothes dryers.

    (a) Label content.
    (1) Headlines and texts, as illustrated in the prototype and sample 
labels in appendix L to this part, are standard for all labels.
    (2) Name of manufacturer or private labeler shall, in the case of a 
corporation, be deemed to be satisfied only by the actual corporate 
name, which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular 
division of the corporation. In the case of an individual, partnership, 
or association, the name under which the business is conducted shall be 
used. Inclusion of the name of the manufacturer or private labeler is 
optional at the discretion of the manufacturer or private labeler.
    (3) Model number(s) will be the designation given by the 
manufacturer or private labeler.
    (4) Capacity or size is that determined in accordance with this 
part.
    (5) Estimated annual operating costs are as determined in 
accordance with this part. Labels must disclose estimated annual 
operating cost for both electricity and/or natural gas as illustrated 
in the sample labels in appendix L to this part.
    (6) Unless otherwise indicated in this paragraph, ranges of 
comparability for estimated annual operating costs are found in the 
appropriate appendices accompanying this part.
    (7) Placement of the labeled product on the scale shall be 
proportionate to the lowest and highest estimated annual operating 
costs.
    (8) Labels for clothes washers must contain the model's estimated 
annual energy consumption as determined in accordance with this part 
and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels for clothes 
dryers must contain the model's combined energy factor (CEF) as 
determined in accordance with this part and as indicated on the sample 
labels in appendix L.
    (9) The clothes washer label shall contain the text and graphics 
illustrated in the sample labels in appendix L, including the 
statement:
    Compare ONLY to other labels with yellow numbers.
    Labels with yellow numbers are based on the same test procedures.
    (10) Labels for clothes washers must contain a statement as 
illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as 
follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate capacity and energy 
cost figures):
    Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
    Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
    Estimated energy cost is based on six wash loads a week and a 
national average electricity cost __ of cents per kWh and natural gas 
cost of $ __ per therm.
    ftc.gov/energy.
    (11) The clothes dryer label shall contain the text and graphics 
illustrated in the sample labels in appendix L, including a statement 
as illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L and specified as 
follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate capacity and energy 
cost figures):
    Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
    Cost range based only on [compact/standard] capacity models.
    Estimated energy cost is based on five wash loads a week and a 
national average [electricity cost of __ cents per kWh or natural gas 
cost of $ __ per therm].
    ftc.gov/energy.
    (12) The following statement shall appear on each label as 
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L:
    Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer 
purchase.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  305.18 by revising the section heading and paragraphs 
(a)(8) and (a)(9), redesignating paragraph (a)(10) as paragraph 
(a)(12), and adding new paragraphs (a)(10) and (a)(11) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  305.18  Label content for room air conditioners, portable air 
conditioners, and room air cleaners.

    (a) * * *
    (8) Labels for room air conditioners, portable air conditioners, 
and room air cleaners must contain the model's estimated annual energy 
consumption as determined in accordance with this part and as indicated 
on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels must contain the model's 
energy efficiency rating, as applicable, as determined in accordance 
with this part and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L to 
this part.
    (9) Labels for room air conditioners and portable air conditioners 
must contain a statement as illustrated in the prototype labels in 
appendix L of this part and specified as follows (fill in the blanks 
with the appropriate model type, year, energy type, and energy cost 
figure):

    Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
    Cost range based only on models [of similar capacity; of similar 
capacity without reverse cycle and with louvered sides; of similar 
capacity without reverse cycle and without louvered sides; with 
reverse cycle and with louvered sides; or with reverse cycle and 
without louvered sides].
    Estimated annual energy cost is based on a national average 
electricity cost of __cents per kWh and a seasonal use of 8 hours 
use per day over a 3-month period.
    For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.

    (10) Labels for air cleaners must contain the model's estimated 
annual energy consumption as determined in accordance with this part 
and as indicated on the sample labels in appendix L. Labels must also 
contain the model's independent energy factor and clean air delivery 
rate, as applicable, as determined in accordance with this part and 
displayed on the label consistent with the sample labels in appendix L 
to this part.
    (11) Labels for air cleaners must contain a statement as 
illustrated in the prototype labels in appendix L of this part and 
specified as follows (fill in the blanks with the appropriate model 
type, year, energy type, and energy cost figure):
    Your costs will depend on your utility rates and use.
    Cost range based only on models of similar capacity.
    The Clean Air Delivery Rate is based on the removal of particulate 
matter that is 2.5 micrometers wide or smaller (PM<INF>2.5</INF> CADR).
    Estimated annual energy cost is based on 16 hours of operation per 
day and a national average electricity cost of __cents per kWh.
    For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.
    (12) The following statement shall appear on each label as 
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L:

    Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer 
purchase.

* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  305.19 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(a) introductory text, redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c), 
and adding new paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.19  Label content for pool heaters and portable electric 
spas.

    (a) Label content for pool heaters.
* * * * *
    (b) Label content for electric spas.
    (1) Headlines and texts, as illustrated in the prototype and sample 
labels in appendix L to this part, are standard for all labels.
    (2) Name of manufacturer or private labeler shall, in the case of a 
corporation, be deemed to be satisfied only by the actual corporate 
name,

[[Page 7592]]

which may be preceded or followed by the name of the particular 
division of the corporation. In the case of an individual, partnership, 
or association, the name under which the business is conducted shall be 
used. Inclusion of the name of the manufacturer or private labeler is 
optional at the discretion of the manufacturer or private labeler.
    (3) Model number(s) will be the designation given by the 
manufacturer or private labeler.
    (4) Capacity or size is that determined in accordance with this 
part.
    (5) Estimated annual heating costs are as determined in accordance 
with this part.
    (6) Energy Used in watts is as determined in accordance with this 
part.
    (7) Unless otherwise indicated in this paragraph, ranges of 
comparability for estimated annual heating costs are found in the 
appropriate appendices accompanying this part.
    (8) Placement of the labeled product on the scale shall be 
proportionate to the lowest and highest annual costs.
    (9) Labels must contain the model's energy use in watts as 
determined in accordance with this part and as indicated on the sample 
labels in appendix L to this part.
    (10) Labels must contain a statement as illustrated in the 
prototype labels in appendix L and specified as follows:
    Cost range based on models with similar capacity.
    The cost estimate reflects only the heating cost of this model and 
does not include other aspects of operation such as water circulation, 
filtration, or lights.
    This label's heating cost estimate is based on continuous heating 
throughout the year and a national average electricity cost of [__] 
cents per kWh.
    For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.
    (11) The following statement shall appear on each label as 
illustrated in the prototype and sample labels in appendix L to this 
part:
    Federal law prohibits removal of this label before consumer 
purchase.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec.  305.20 by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), 
(f)(11), and (f)(13) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.20  Labeling for central air conditioners, heat pumps, and 
furnaces.

    (a) Layout. All energy labels for central air conditioners, heat 
pumps, and furnaces (including boilers) shall use one size, similar 
colors, and typefaces with consistent positioning of headline, copy, 
and charts to maintain uniformity for immediate consumer recognition 
and readability. Trim size dimensions for all labels shall be as 
follows: width must be between 5\1/4\ inches and 5\1/2\ inches (13.34 
cm. and 13.97 cm.); length must be between 7\3/8\ inches (18.78 cm.) 
and 7\5/8\ (19.34 cm.). All positioning, spacing, type sizes, and line 
widths should be similar to and consistent with the prototype and 
sample labels in appendix L.
    (b) Type style and setting. The Arial Narrow series typeface or 
equivalent shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific sizes and 
faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels. No hyphenation 
should be used in setting headline or copy text. Positioning and 
spacing should follow the prototypes closely. See the prototype labels 
for specific directions.
    (c) Colors. The basic colors of all labels covered by this section 
shall be process yellow or equivalent and process black. The label 
shall be printed full bleed process yellow. All type and graphics shall 
be print process black.
    (d) Label type. The labels must be affixed in the form of an 
adhesive label, unless otherwise indicated by this section. The 
adhesion capacity and paper stock should be sufficient to prevent their 
dislodgment during normal handling throughout the chain of distribution 
to the retailer or consumer.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (11) Manufacturers of furnaces (including boilers) shipped with 
more than one input nozzle to be installed in the field, but no nozzle 
factory installed, must label such furnaces with the AFUE of the system 
when it is set up with the nozzle that results in the lowest AFUE 
rating. See paragraph (f)(13) of this section for furnaces shipped with 
more than one input nozzle, one of which is factory installed.
* * * * *
    (13) Manufacturers of furnaces (including boilers) must label their 
products with the AFUE rating associated with the furnace's input 
capacity set by the manufacturer at shipment. The furnace label may 
also contain a chart, as illustrated in sample label 9B in appendix L 
to this part, indicating the efficiency rating at up to three 
additional input capacities offered by the manufacturer. Consistent 
with paragraph (f)(10)(iii) of this section, labels for furnaces may 
include the ENERGY STAR logo only if the model qualifies for that 
program on all input capacities displayed on the label.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  305.22 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.22  Energy information disclosures for heating and cooling 
equipment.

* * * * *
    (c) Furnace labels. If an installer installs a furnace (including 
boiler) with an input capacity different from that set by the 
manufacturer and the manufacturer identifies alternative capacities on 
the label, the installer must permanently mark the appropriate box on 
the EnergyGuide label displaying the installed input capacity and the 
associated AFUE as illustrated in Sample Labels in appendix L to this 
part.
0
15. Amend Sec.  305.27 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(i), paragraph 
(a)(2), and paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.27  Paper catalogs and websites.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Products required to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels. 
All websites advertising covered products required to have an 
EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label under this part must display, for 
each model, a recognizable and legible image of the label required for 
that product by this part. The website may hyperlink to the image of 
the label using a recognizable thumbnail image or the sample 
EnergyGuide and Lighting Facts icons depicted in appendix L of this 
part. The website must hyperlink the image in a way that does not 
require consumers to save the hyperlinked image to view it.
* * * * *
    (2) Format. The required website disclosures, whether label image, 
icon, or text, must appear clearly and conspicuously and in close 
proximity to the covered product's price on each web page that contains 
a detailed description of the covered product and its price. The label 
and hyperlink icon must conform to the prototypes in appendix L, but 
may be altered in size to accommodate the web page's design, as long as 
they remain clear and conspicuous to consumers viewing the page. The 
image or icon required by paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section must be 
readily visible to the consumer without requiring any additional 
scrolling, clicking, or other similar actions.
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Products required to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels. 
All paper catalogs advertising covered products required by this part 
to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels illustrated in appendix L 
of this part must either display an image of the full label prepared in 
accordance with this

[[Page 7593]]

part, or make a text disclosure as follows:
    (A) Refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, freezer, and miscellaneous 
refrigerator product. The capacity of the model determined in 
accordance with this part, the estimated annual operating cost 
determined in accordance with this part, and a disclosure stating 
``Your energy cost depends on your utility rates and use. The estimated 
cost is based on cents per kWh. For more information, visit 
www.ftc.gov/energy.''
    (B) Room air conditioners, portable air conditioners, air cleaners, 
and water heaters. The capacity of the model determined in accordance 
with this part, the estimated annual operating cost determined in 
accordance with this part, and a disclosure stating ``Your operating 
costs will depend on your utility rates and use. The estimated 
operating cost is based on a [electricity, natural gas, propane, or 
oil] cost of [$ __per kWh, therm, or gallon]. For more information, 
visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
    (C) Clothes washers, dishwashers, and clothes dryers. The capacity 
of the model determined in accordance with this part, the estimated 
annual operating cost determined in accordance with this part, and a 
disclosure stating ``Your energy cost depends on your utility rates and 
use. The estimated cost is based on [4 washloads a week for 
dishwashers, or 8 washloads a week for clothes washers, or 5 washloads 
a week for clothes dryers] and __cents per kWh for electricity and 
$__per therm for natural gas. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
    (D) General service fluorescent lamps or general service lamps. All 
the information concerning that lamp required by Sec.  305.23 of this 
part to be disclosed on the lamp's package, and, for general service 
lamps, a disclosure stating ``Your energy cost depends on your utility 
rates and use. The estimated cost and life is based on 11 cents per kWh 
and 3 hours of use per day. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.'' For the ``Light Appearance'' disclosure required by Sec.  
305.23(b)(3)(iv), the catalog need only disclose the lamp's correlated 
color temperature in Kelvin (e.g., 2700 K). General service fluorescent 
lamps or incandescent reflector lamps must also include a capital 
letter ``E'' printed within a circle and the statement described in 
Sec.  305.23(g)(1).
    (E) Ceiling fans. All the information required by Sec.  305.21.
    (F) Televisions. The estimated annual operating cost determined in 
accordance with this part and a disclosure stating ``Your energy cost 
depends on your utility rates and use. The estimated cost is based on 
12 cents per kWh and 5 hours of use per day. For more information, 
visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
    (G) Central air conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces (including 
boilers), and pool heaters. The capacity of the model determined in 
accordance with this part and the energy efficiency or thermal 
efficiency ratings determined in accordance with this part on each page 
that lists the covered product.
    (H) Portable electric spa. The capacity of the model determined in 
accordance with this part, the estimated annual operating cost 
determined in accordance with this part, a disclosure stating ``This 
label's heating cost estimate is based on continuous heating throughout 
the year and a national average electricity cost of [__] cents per 
kWh,'' and a disclosure stating ``Your operating costs will depend on 
your utility rates and use. The estimated operating cost is based on a 
[electricity, natural gas, propane, or oil] cost of [$__per kWh, therm, 
or gallon]. For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/energy.''
* * * * *
0
16. Add Appendix B4 to read as follows:

Appendix B4 to Part 305--Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products Range 
Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Range of estimated
                                                     annual energy costs
 Manufacturer's rated total refrigerated volume in     (dollars/year)
                    cubic feet                     ---------------------
                                                       Low        High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than 2.5.....................................       (*)        (*)
2.6 to 5.0........................................       (*)        (*)
5.1 to 7.5........................................       (*)        (*)
7.6 to 10.0.......................................       (*)        (*)
10.1 to 12.5......................................       (*)        (*)
12.6 to 15.0......................................       (*)        (*)
15.1 to 17.5......................................       (*)        (*)
17.6 to 20.0......................................       (*)        (*)
20.1 to 22.5......................................       (*)        (*)
22.6 and over.....................................       (*)        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.

0
17. Add Appendix E3 to read as follows:

Appendix E3 to Part 305--Air Cleaners Range Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Range of estimated
                                                     annual energy costs
   Manufacturer's rated room size in square feet       (dollars/year)
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       Low        High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small (15-154 sq. ft.)............................       (*)        (*)
Medium (155-235 sq. ft.)..........................       (*)        (*)
Large (236 and greater sq. ft.)...................       (*)        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.

0
18. Add Appendix F3 and F4 to read as follows:

Appendix F3 to Part 305--Compact Clothes Dryers Range Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Range of estimated
                                                     annual energy costs
                     Capacity                          (dollars/year)
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       Low        High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compact...........................................       (*)        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.

Appendix F4 to Part 305--Standard Clothes Dryers Range Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Range of estimated
                                                     annual energy costs
                     Capacity                          (dollars/year)
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       Low        High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard..........................................       (*)        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.

0
19. Add Appendix J3 to read as follows:

Appendix J3 to Part 305--Portable Electric Spas Range Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Range of estimated
                                                    annual heating costs
     Manufacturer's rated capacity in gallons          (dollars/year)
                                                   ---------------------
                                                       Low        High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
200 sq. ft. or less...............................       (*)        (*)
201-400 sq. ft....................................       (*)        (*)
401-600 sq. ft....................................       (*)        (*)
600 sq. ft. or larger.............................       (*)        (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) No data.

0
20. Revise Appendix K1 to read as follows:

Appendix K1 to Part 305--Representative Average Unit Energy Costs for 
Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, Miscellaneous 
Refrigerator Products, Clothes Washers, Clothes Dryers, Dishwashers, 
Air Cleaners, Portable Electric Spas, and Water Heater Labels

    This Table contains the representative unit energy costs that must 
be utilized to calculate estimated annual energy cost disclosures 
required under this Part for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers,

[[Page 7594]]

freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator products, clothes washers, clothes 
dryers, dishwashers, air cleaners, portable electric spas, and water 
heaters. This Table is based on information published by the U.S. 
Department of Energy in 2022.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                In commonly used     As required by DOE
       Type of energy                 terms            test procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electricity.................  [cent]14/kWh 1 2....  $.1400/kWh.
Natural Gas.................  $1.21/therm,\3\       $0.00001209/Btu.\4\
                               $12.6/MCF 5 6.
No. 2 Heating Oil...........  $3.45/gallon \7\....  $0.00002511/Btu.
Propane.....................  $2.23/gallon \8\....  $0.00002446/Btu.
Kerosene....................  $4.01/gallon \9\....  $0.00002973/Btu.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ kWh stands for kiloWatt hour.
\2\ 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu.
\3\ 1 therm = 100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes.
\4\ Btu stands for British thermal unit.
\5\ MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet.
\6\ For the purposes of this table, 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an
  energy equivalence of 1,039 Btu.
\7\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of No. 2 heating oil has
  an energy equivalence of 138,500 Btu.
\8\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of liquid propane has an
  energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu.
\9\ For the purposes of this table, one gallon of kerosene has an energy
  equivalence of 135,000 Btu.

0
21. Amend Appendix L by adding samples labels 18, 19, and 20 to read as 
follows:
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

Appendix L to Part 305--Sample Labels

* * * * *

[[Page 7595]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.008


[[Page 7596]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.009


[[Page 7597]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE24.010


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

[FR Doc. 2024-01601 Filed 2-1-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C