7566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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). 

6EPCA 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). 

7 16 CFR 305.12. 

8 87 FR 64399 (Oct. 25, 2022). 

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

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 fiveyear schedule, for updating 

comparability range and annual energy 

cost information based on manufacturer 

data submitted pursuant to the Rule’s 

reporting requirements.7

III. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In 2022, the Commission published 

an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) seeking comment 

on potential improvements to the 

Energy Labeling Rule, including 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7567 

9Under 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). 

10The comments are available at 

www.regulations.gov. 

11A 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). 

12See, 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). 

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. 

16The 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). 17P.R. China, however, recommended that the 

FTC not require labeling for products without clear 

test procedures. 

instructions.9 The Commission is not 

seeking further comment on those repair 

issues at this time. While the 

Commission is not seeking additional 

comment at this time, we remain 

interested and engaged with 

stakeholders on this issue. As expressed 

in the Nixing the Fix report, we remain 

concerned about the repairability of 

products. We continue to review 

comments, research, legislative 

initiatives and industry practices as we 

evaluate next steps. 

In response, the Commission received 

48 comments, covering the following 

four areas: (1) potential new product 

categories; (2) existing product 

categories; (3) label placement 

requirements; and (4) miscellaneous 

issues. The following section 

summarizes these comments and 

provides the Commission’s analysis.10

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 higherefficiency models. It noted that energy 

efficiency benefits not only homeowners 

but tenants who pay utility bills but do 

not choose installed equipment. 

B. Air Cleaners (‘‘Air Purifiers’’) 

Background: Air cleaners (or ‘‘air 

purifiers’’) use significant amounts of 

energy and exhibit a substantial range of 

energy use and annual energy costs 

among similar models. For example, as 

discussed in the ANPR, recent ENERGY 

STAR data shows models rated for room 

sizes between 150 and 299 square feet 

range in annual energy use from about 

50 kWh/yr to 360 kWh/yr, resulting in 

an estimated annual difference of more 

than $30 per year in energy costs 

(assuming $0.14/kWh),12 a range similar 

to many refrigerators subject to labeling. 

Additionally, DOE recently completed 

proceedings that establish test 

procedures 13 and final conservation 

standards 14 for these products. 

Comments: As discussed below, 

commenters addressing air cleaners 

generally supported energy label 

requirements once DOE resolved 

questions regarding its test procedure— 

which it has done. 

While all commenters addressing this 

issue supported a label, some urged the 

Commission to set a compliance date 

that takes into account DOE’s 

rulemaking. For instance, the Joint 

Commenters, a collection of industry 

and energy-efficiency organizations, 

along with the California Investor 

Owned Utilities (‘‘IOUs’’), 

recommended a December 31, 2025 

label compliance date (or three years 

after final DOE action, whichever is 

later) to coincide with their 

recommended compliance date for the 

second tier of DOE standards and test 

procedures.15 The Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(‘‘AHRI’’) also recommended FTC wait 

until DOE publishes a final energy 

conservation standard before 

conducting a labeling rulemaking, and 

then require labeling by the Joint 

Commenter’s recommended compliance 

date, or no sooner than 2025. In 

addition, P.R. China, which urged the 

FTC to refrain from issuing labeling 

rules until DOE clarifies its test 

procedure, noted inconsistencies 

between DOE’s proposed test for 

measuring the Integrated Energy 

Factor 16 (‘‘IEF’’) and the annual energy 

use (kWh/year) in the ENERGY STAR 

certification. P.R. China also observed 

consumers can ‘‘easily check the annual 

energy usage (kWh/year) of different 

manufacturers and air purifiers models 

on the ENERGY STAR website.’’ 17

Commenters additionally urged the 

FTC to include a room size estimate on 

the label using a single, consistent test 

method. For instance, the California 

IOUs explained the lack of a consistent 

room size metric has led to multiple, 

inconsistent representations affecting 

consumers’ ability to make informed 

decisions, even among top-rated 

products. These utilities also 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18The Joint Commenters stated that a standard 

first-order differential equation that includes these 

contributions is utilized for the calculation, and 

that is summarized as: Room Size (square feet¥ft2) 

= cigarette smoke CADR × 1.55; Room Size (square 

meters¥m2) = Room Size (ft2) × 0.093. They also 

explained that the maximum allowable CADR that 

can be measured by the ANSI/AHAM AC–1–2020 

method in the chamber is 600, so the maximum 

room size that the standard can confidently predict 

performance would be a room of 930 ft2 (86.4 m2). 

For modeling of suggested room size, AHAM 

assumes a room height of 8 feet and the air cleaner 

producing 4.8 air changes per hour of cleaned air. 

19Madison 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). 

20See ‘‘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. 

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. 

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

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. 

in a steady-state room environment 

(assuming the room experiences 

incoming pollutants at the rate of one 

air change per hour) and with complete 

mixing in the room. The Joint 

Commenters also urged the use of the 

CADR value from the AHAM test 

method to determine the recommended 

room size, as opposed to an alternative 

such as ‘‘PM 2.5.’’ They explained 

engineering tobacco smoke used in the 

test is a surrogate for many of the fine 

particles found in a home, and thus 

generates a useful performance metric 

even for consumers who do not 

smoke.18

Several commenters also urged the 

Commission to include a CADR 

disclosure on the label. CADR measures 

the number of cleaned air exchanges for 

a given square footage of space and thus 

describes more than the system’s filter 

efficiency or fan strength. For example, 

Blueair recommended this disclosure 

because it is widely accepted within the 

industry and can highlight ‘‘energy 

efficiency and power consumption, 

while also providing information about 

air filtration.’’ According to Blueair, 

models with a high CADR rating 

optimize both the filtration efficiency of 

the air purifier and its airflow to clean 

the air quickly and effectively from 

pollutants. Blueair further explained 

many products on the market offer a 

high filtration percentage (i.e., ‘‘a single 

pass filtration efficiency’’), but only 

produce a small volume of clean air and 

thus are slow to cycle through a room’s 

air. 

Blueair, however, opposed including 

energy costs on labels unless ‘‘accuracy 

could be assured.’’ It explained the test 

conditions behind such an estimate may 

involve unrealistic conditions (e.g., 

‘‘running products at their highest levels 

for a period of time’’) and may produce 

‘‘elevated cost estimates’’ inconsistent 

with actual operation. 

Finally, one commenter addressed the 

label’s location and content. 

Specifically, the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) 

recommended the Commission require 

manufacturers to display a new air 

cleaner label on boxes via a QR code 

and provided a sample label containing 

disclosures for annual energy cost, room 

size, and Integrated Energy Factor.19

Discussion: The Commission proposes 

requiring EnergyGuide labeling for air 

cleaners. Recent DOE analysis 

demonstrates significant variability in 

the energy use of various air cleaner 

models.20 Therefore, as discussed 

above, labeling should assist consumers 

in their purchasing decisions by 

allowing them to choose among 

competing models with a range of 

energy costs. In addition, such labeling 

does not appear to raise unique or 

difficult implementation issues 

compared to other products already 

labeled under the Rule, and, therefore, 

should be economically and 

technologically feasible. 

The proposed amendments require 

manufactures to affix an EnergyGuide 

label on air cleaner packages because 

retailers typically display these 

products in boxes. The proposed label 

displays yearly energy costs as the 

primary disclosure. The label also 

includes secondary disclosures, which 

the Commission has determined will 

assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions or in using such products, and 

will not be unduly burdensome to 

manufacturers.21 Specifically, the label 

includes a yearly energy cost range for 

the recommended room size, CADR, and 

IEF. The recommended room size is 

based on categories DOE applies in their 

regulations: small (15–154 sq. ft.), 

medium (155–235 sq. ft.), and large (236 

and greater sq. ft.) room sizes.22 The 

proposed label also includes the 

following explanatory text: ‘‘The Clean 

Air Delivery Rate is based on the 

removal of particulate matter that is 2.5 

micrometers wide or smaller (PM2.5

CADR).’’ Additionally, the label 

includes a tertiary disclosure, the 

model’s efficiency rating (the IEF), 

which should help consumers 

understand the product’s energy use. 

These secondary and tertiary 

disclosures help consumers identify 

models with the appropriate capacity 

for their needs and facilitates an applesto-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. 

Under this proposed Rule and 

consistent with EPCA’s requirements, 

manufacturers must use the new DOE 

test procedure to generate information 

on the label. In issuing its test 

procedure, DOE has resolved or 

addressed the various commenter issues 

concerning testing.23 Given DOE’s 

expertise in setting such procedures, the 

Commission defers to its conclusions. In 

addition, the Commission will set a 

labeling compliance date consistent 

with DOE’s Tier 2 standards 

requirements (Dec. 31, 2025), as 

suggested by the Joint Commenters. This 

date will provide the FTC an 

opportunity to gather and publish range 

information for the new label based on 

reporting to DOE or other available 

sources prior to the compliance date, 

and otherwise provide the time 

necessary for manufacturers to create 

and incorporate the new labels on 

packaging. Consistent with DOE 

requirements, the proposed reporting 

date for these products is December 1 of 

each year. The Commission seeks 

comment on all aspects of this proposal. 

Among other things, commenters 

should address the content, placement, 

and timing for the new label, as well as 

any other relevant issues. 

C. Clothes Dryers 

Background: EPCA designates clothes 

dryers as covered products in 42 U.S.C. 

6292. In 1979, however, the 

Commission declined to require labels 

for these products after finding 

competing models on the market had a 

limited range of energy use.24 In 2014, 

the Commission reconsidered that 

decision, and again concluded 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7569 

25 79 FR 34642, 34659 (June 18, 2014); 80 FR 

67285, 67296 (Nov. 2, 2015). 

26See 80 FR at 67296. 

27CEF 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). 

28Calculated 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. 

efficiency varied little across available 

models.25 Although the Commission 

recognized emerging heat pump models 

used less energy than conventional 

dryers, few, if any, such models were 

available in the U.S. at the time. Now, 

however, heat pump models appear to 

be more prevalent in the U.S. market. 

The ANPR, for example, noted the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) ENERGY STAR website 

(www.energy.gov) lists about two dozen 

heat pump models as qualifying under 

that program. 

Comments: Commenters split on 

whether consumers would benefit from 

an EnergyGuide label for clothes dryers. 

Some opponents of a label asserted it 

would provide limited benefit to 

consumers because there is little 

variation in energy use among models. 

Specifically, AHAM and Whirlpool 

contended available DOE data suggests 

most models largely cluster into three 

groups: (1) those just meeting current 

DOE standard levels, (2) those meeting 

the ENERGY STAR Clothes Dryer 

Version 1.1 specification levels, and (3) 

those qualified for ENERGY STAR 2023 

‘‘Most Efficient’’ designation. According 

to AHAM data, only three percent of 

shipments and nine percent of electric 

standard dryer models fall between the 

DOE energy conservation standard 

(group 1) and the ENERGY STAR level 

(group 2). Further, only two percent of 

shipments outperform the ENERGY 

STAR (group 3). In short, AHAM asserts 

available models largely fall into ‘‘two 

clumps—either ENERGY STAR or not.’’ 

Thus, ENERGY STAR designations 

already provide the information needed 

to make informed purchasing decisions. 

Whirlpool added the FTC cannot 

demonstrate this variation is great 

enough to assist consumers in their 

purchase decisions, and that labeling 

benefits outweigh the burden associated 

with manufacturers developing and 

applying labels. 

Other commenters disagreed. The 

California IOUs, for example, supported 

‘‘a label that can easily differentiate the 

annual operating costs between 

products.’’ It recommended the label 

include energy costs as the primary 

disclosure, and a list of the underlying 

assumptions used to calculate such 

information, including clothes drying 

cycles (per week), utility prices, and test 

load sizes. In addition, Earthjustice 

asserted, dryer labels ‘‘may deliver the 

greatest aggregate consumer benefits.’’ 

Citing EPCA’s labeling provisions and 

past FTC consideration of the issue, it 

argued, because ‘‘FTC has not found— 

nor could it find—that labeling clothes 

dryers would not be technologically or 

economically feasible, labels are 

required.’’ Moreover, Earthjustice 

argued the past FTC concerns over 

multiple DOE test procedures are no 

longer a barrier to labeling.26 Finally, 

according to Earthjustice, energy 

efficiency advances have led to 

significant energy use variation among 

current clothes dryer models since the 

FTC last examined the issue. 

Electrolux, a manufacturer of clothes 

dryers, also expressed support for a 

dryer label, provided manufacturers 

have at least a year to comply. The 

company noted that, while vented 

dryers still account for about ninety 

percent of models, other options are 

steadily increasing. According to 

Electrolux, these newer products, which 

use emerging technologies found in heat 

pump and condensing models, use less 

energy, though with some increase in 

drying time. 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, pointof-sale energy information, little 

incentive exists to do otherwise. In 

Electrolux’s opinion, an energy label 

would encourage more accurate 

disclosures. Electrolux provided sample 

labels featuring the Combined Energy 

Factor (‘‘CEF’’) 27 as the primary display 

because it ‘‘is the standard metric of the 

official energy test procedure and used 

by the DOE to regulate the dryer 

energy.’’ Finally, Electrolux stated 

labeling will add ‘‘significant cost 

burden,’’ which could be mitigated by 

using paperless labeling. 

The California IOUs recommended 

the dryer label include information 

about clothing samples used in the test 

in addition to the test load size to 

ensure consumers understand the 

testing conditions. They also urged that 

the label include the dryer cycle time 

from a reputable source such as the 

ENERGY STAR program because that 

information is important to some 

consumers. Additionally, they 

recommended the label contain two 

ranges, one for the model class (e.g., 

vented or ventless) based on similar 

features, and another combining all 

model classes. 

Finally, the California IOUs explained 

the DOE test procedure for automatic 

termination control dryers requires rerunning 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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

30See 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). 

31See DOE Compliance Certification Management 

System, https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 

32Pursuant 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). 

33Commenter 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. 

34 87 FR 8745 (Feb. 16, 2022); 87 FR 54123 (Sept. 

2, 2022) codified at 10 CFR 430.2. 

benefits to consumers.’’ 44 FR at 66467– 

68. 

Consistent with labels for similar 

appliances, the proposed dryer label 

features annual energy costs as the 

primary disclosure derived from the 

DOE test procedure, with a secondary 

CEF disclosure. The CEF metric 

provides consumers with a second way 

to understand energy use by disclosing 

a rating derived from measuring the 

energy needed to dry a specific test 

load, thus augmenting the label’s 

primary yearly energy cost disclosure. 

The proposal also divides ranges into 

standard (4.4 cu. ft. or greater) and 

compact (smaller than 4.4 cu. ft.) size 

categories, reflecting the DOE size 

categories for these products. Consistent 

with similarly-fueled products such as 

water heaters, the proposed Rule also 

contains separate ranges for gas dryers 

and electric dryers because most 

consumers are likely to be in the market 

for one or the other and do not 

comparison shop between those model 

types. 

Finally, consistent with labels for 

other products and to provide 

consumers with the basic assumptions 

behind the label’s estimate, the 

proposed label includes a statement 

explaining the duty cycle (i.e., the 

typical yearly usage) underlying the 

label calculations (i.e., ‘‘approximately 5 

loads per week’’ based on the DOE 

requirement of 236 per year).29

The Commission also proposes to 

begin requiring the label when DOE’s 

new test procedure (‘‘Appendix D2’’) 

becomes applicable to all dryers, to 

ensure consistency across all labeled 

products.30 DOE requirements currently 

allow manufacturers to use one of two 

different test procedures—Appendix D1 

or Appendix D2. By waiting until the 

test in Appendix D2 applies to all units, 

the FTC will ensure consistent 

information on the label from a single 

test. Once applicable data is available, 

the Commission proposes to publish 

ranges and provide manufacturers six 

months to begin labeling their products. 

The Commission, however, does not 

propose adding additional information 

to the label regarding clothing samples, 

cycle time, and models that require two 

cycles under the DOE test procedure. 

Such information will crowd the label 

and may confuse consumers. In 

addition, the results of the DOE test 

already reflect the significant costs 

associated with those models requiring 

two cycles under the DOE test 

procedure. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether it should have separate range 

categories for vented and ventless 

models. Specifically, commenters 

should address whether consumers are 

likely to compare models with such 

features when shopping. Commenters 

should also address whether an annual 

energy use number as the secondary 

disclosure would be more useful to 

consumers in lieu of the CEF. 

D. Miscellaneous Refrigerator Products 

Background: DOE has designated 

miscellaneous refrigerators (‘‘MREFs’’) 

as covered products under EPCA. This 

category includes coolers (e.g., wine 

chillers) and combination cooler 

refrigeration products (i.e., products 

with warm and cool compartments). 

Within the category, some similarlysized 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

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

The Commission seeks information on 

whether a typical consumer shopping 

for such products is likely to consider 

both ‘‘built-in’’ and ‘‘freestanding’’ 

models, and if so whether the proposed 

categories should be combined. 

E. Portable Electric Spas 

Background: The Commission’s 

ANPR sought comment on labeling for 

portable electric spas (e.g., hot tubs). In 

February 2022, DOE published a 

tentative determination that portable 

electric spas qualify as a covered 

product under EPCA and followed with 

a final coverage determination in 

September 2022.34 DOE estimated more 

than 3 million households in the U.S. 

operate portable electric spas regularly, 

using an estimated energy consumption 

of 1,699 kWh/yr per household 

(approximately $238 per year). 

Comments: Commenters addressing 

portable electric spas generally 

supported labeling these products. The 

California IOUs, for example, noted that, 

unlike many showroom appliances, 

electric spas currently do not fall under 

the ENERGY STAR program, which 

makes identification of the most 

efficient spas ‘‘more challenging when 

shopping online or on the showroom 

floor.’’ 

Most commenters focused on the 

timing of potential labels in light of 

ongoing DOE regulatory efforts. For 

example, Rheem, the Pool & Hot Tub 

Alliance (‘‘PHTA’’), the International 

Hot Tub Association (‘‘IHTA’’), and the 

California IOUs recommended the 

Commission require labels after DOE 

finalizes its coverage determination, test 

procedures, and standards. According to 

PHTA and IHTA, industry members will 

need an opportunity to examine the 

final DOE test procedure before 

providing ‘‘fully-informed’’ comments 

on label 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 . . . 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7571 

35According to the California IOUs, portable 

electric spas sold in California after June 2019 must 

bear a consumer-facing label displaying the spa’s 

average standby power usage. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 

20, Sec. 1602 and 1607. These commenters urge 

FTC to use it as the basis for a national spa label. 

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

37According 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). 

39As 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. 

40See 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. 

41Some commenters (e.g., California IOUs) 

generally supported labeling for new product 

categories, like residential ice makers, without 

further elaboration. 

42AHAM 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). 

43See 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). 

where readily visible on the shell or 

front skirt panel of a spa, or the 

container of the inflatable spa during 

the point of sale.’’ 35

The California IOUs provided several 

content suggestions. First, they 

recommended a five-star rating system. 

Noting FTC’s past decision to reject 

such a system, based in part over 

potential confusion between a five-star 

rating system and ENERGY STAR 

disclosures, they argued such 

considerations would not apply to spas 

because of their absence from the 

ENERGY STAR program. They also 

recommended the FTC sort spas by 

volume to ensure the labels’ ranges 

compare similarly-sized models. 

Finally, they suggested the label 

prominently feature the tested ambient 

temperature ‘‘so consumers can easily 

discern the difference between the 

tested temperature and their climate 

conditions.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission proposes 

requiring EnergyGuide labels for 

portable electric spas. Available 

information suggests labeling for these 

products would assist consumers in 

their purchasing decisions. For 

example, DOE has found that ratings of 

certified portable electric spas in data 

collected by the California Energy 

Commission ‘‘demonstrate significant 

variation in the total power 

consumption among different models of 

standard, combination, and exercise 

spas that are currently available.’’ 36

Additionally, no available information 

suggests labeling will pose burdens 

significantly outweighing the benefits. 

As with most other labeled products, 

the proposed label’s content reflects the 

information generated by the DOE test 

procedure.37 DOE published its final 

rule establishing its test procedure on 

June 13, 2023.38 As several commenters 

noted, this procedure only measures 

standby heating costs for spas, not other 

operating costs (e.g., water circulation, 

lights, etc.). However, because standby 

heating costs account for the large 

majority of the product’s energy use, the 

Commission finds the usage numbers 

produced by the DOE procedure will be 

beneficial to consumers. To ensure 

consumers understand this limitation, 

the bottom of the proposed label states: 

‘‘The cost estimate reflects only the 

heating cost of this model and does not 

include other aspects of operation such 

as water circulation, filtration, or 

lights.’’ 

Additionally, consistent with the DOE 

test, a model’s ‘‘estimated yearly heating 

cost’’ would serve as the label’s primary 

disclosure and reflect the estimated cost 

associated with continuous standby 

heating throughout the year. 

Specifically, the standard cost 

information on the bottom of the 

proposed label states: ‘‘This label’s 

heating cost estimate is based on 

continuous heating throughout the year 

and a national average electricity cost of 

[__] cents per kWh.’’ The proposed label 

also contains a smaller, secondary 

disclosure stating ‘‘Energy Used’’ in 

watts to assist consumers who are 

interested in comparing the respective 

watts used by the hot tub on standby 

and by other energy-consuming 

products in their home. Finally, the 

proposed Rule requires disclosures of 

‘‘fill volume’’ to provide a key 

underlying metric behind the energy use 

disclosure.39

The Commission seeks comments on 

whether the Rule should require such a 

capacity disclosure and, if so, whether 

‘‘fill volume’’ is an appropriate metric. 

In addition, given the marked difference 

in the size and functionality of spas, the 

Commission requests commenters to 

address whether the Rule should 

contain separate range categories for 

spas, separated by capacity and/or spa 

type (e.g., standard and exercise spas). 

The Commission also seeks information 

on the appropriate placement for the 

label (e.g., on the product itself, on 

packaging, or included inside the 

packaging, etc.), whether these products 

are typically displayed in retail brickand-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, nonportable, and uncooled storage. DOE 

research has found residential ice 

makers consume a significant amount of 

energy, and that there are significant 

energy use differences both across and 

within these configurations.40

Comments: Commenters specifically 

addressing residential ice makers 

opposed labeling for these products.41

According to AHAM and Whirlpool, the 

DOE commercial test 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. 

Moreover, in the DOE proceeding, 

AHAM opposed DOE’s four-pound-perday usage metric, arguing reliance on 

the number would mislead consumers 

because no data supported the 

assumption behind it. Instead, AHAM 

urged DOE to study average daily ice 

use for the residential products and use 

those assumptions to determine whether 

standards are justified under EPCA.42

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose a label for residential ice 

makers at this time. Given the 

uncertainties regarding energy use, the 

absence of a test procedure specifically 

tailored to residential (consumer) 

models, and ongoing concerns 

expressed by commenters about the 

applicability of the commercial test to 

residential models, the Commission will 

continue to monitor developments 

related to these products and revisit the 

issue if warranted. 

G. Humidifiers 

Background: Consumers use 

residential humidifiers either to 

increase or maintain the humidity levels 

in all or parts of the home or to ease 

illness symptoms.43 There are currently 

no DOE or EPA ENERGY STAR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

44ENERGY 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. 

45AHAM 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.’’ 

46AHAM’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. 

47 87 FR 6786 (Feb. 7, 2022). 

48See 87 FR at 6792. DOE also discussed these 

general issues in 2013. 78 FR 79638, 79640 (Dec. 

31, 2013). 

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. 

50Without further elaboration, commenter 

Merriam suggested adding space heaters in addition 

to the Miscellaneous gas products (‘‘Hearth 

Products’’). 

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). 

55See 87 FR 51492 (Aug. 22, 2022)); 86 FR 60974 

(Nov. 4, 2021) (results of round robin testing). 

standards or test procedures for these 

products. However, a 2012 ENERGY 

STAR report found there were 

differences in energy consumption 

among competing humidifiers, 

particularly for whole-house models.44

The report also stated there was ‘‘very 

little, if any, correlation between 

humidification capacity (in square feet) 

and watt rating.’’ The report concluded 

consumers could collectively save an 

estimated 3.4 terawatts of electricity 

over the lifetime of these products by 

choosing energy-efficient humidifiers. 

Comments: The two commenters 

addressing this product in detail 

opposed labeling. Specifically, AHRI 

and AHAM argued labeling was not 

appropriate due to the lack of DOE (or 

industry) test procedures or standards, 

and the lack of evidence labeling would 

aid consumers.45

AHRI disagreed with conclusions in 

the 2012 ENERGY STAR report. It 

attributed EPA’s findings to ‘‘a lack of 

understanding of adiabatic and steam 

product operation.’’ In contrast to the 

report, AHRI argued that the energy 

input for the two primary types of 

systems—steam and adiabatic—are 

‘‘quite comparable,’’ and observed little 

variability in the energy input between 

current brands/models.46 Finally, no 

commenter identified a separate test 

procedure suitable for humidifier 

labeling or otherwise provided specific 

support for labeling these products. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

now propose requiring labeling for 

humidifiers. Doing so would be 

premature in the absence of a DOE test 

procedure or a suitable substitute. The 

Commission acknowledges the 

inconsistencies between the industry 

comments and the 2012 EPA report 

regarding relative energy use. However, 

in the absence of an applicable test 

procedure, there is no need to now 

address this issue further. The 

Commission will continue to monitor 

developments related to potential 

labeling for these products. 

H. Miscellaneous Gas Products 

Background: In February 2022, DOE 

tentatively determined miscellaneous 

gas products, such as decorative hearths 

and outdoor heaters, qualify as covered 

products under EPCA.47 These products 

include fireplaces, fire pits, and similar 

products that have decorative purposes 

but can also provide heat. DOE 

proposed defining ‘‘decorative hearth 

product’’ as gas-fired appliances that 

simulate a solid-fueled fireplace or 

present a flame pattern. DOE’s proposed 

definition includes products: (1) 

designed for indoor and/or outdoor use; 

(2) not designed to be operated with a 

thermostat; (3) not designed to provide 

space heating to the indoor space in 

which they are installed; and (4) not 

designed to provide heat proximate to 

the unit. DOE estimates suggest these 

products can generate substantial energy 

costs for consumers.48

Comments: Commenters specifically 

addressing miscellaneous gas products 

generally opposed labeling 

requirements, arguing any such 

requirements are premature given 

ongoing work related to defining 

categories, establishing test procedures, 

and setting standards. For example, 

AHRI stated the ‘‘product class is vast, 

varied, and only recently covered by 

DOE.’’ Further, the test procedure 

development process has not begun. 

AHRI also discussed the broad array of 

products in this category and identified 

industry test procedures, some of which 

do not contain provisions for efficiency 

metrics.49 Similarly, several natural gas 

industry organizations (the ‘‘Group’’) 

argued because DOE has not completed 

its work on establishing efficiency levels 

and test procedures for several of these 

products, a labeling rule would be 

premature and could risk 

‘‘communicating incomplete or 

inaccurate information to a consumer.’’ 

The Group also noted the DOE coverage 

determination for these products is 

currently undergoing a legal challenge, 

which could alter their status under 

EPCA. 

In addition to these DOE-related 

concerns, TIC Council cautioned an 

EnergyGuide label may suggest these 

products are energy-efficient.50 Finally, 

AHRI argued, given the variety and 

different uses of these products, ‘‘it is 

very difficult to envision a label that 

would help inform consumers.’’ 

Specifically, according to AHRI, some 

products are sold by contractors and 

many as part of new home construction, 

where consumers are unlikely to see the 

labels prior to purchase. AHRI also 

suggested the label would be obtrusive 

and detract from a product’s decorative 

nature, particularly outdoor products 

such as patio heaters ‘‘that are integral 

to the ambience.’’ 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

now propose labeling requirements for 

miscellaneous gas products. Given the 

array of product types and the early 

stages of DOE test procedure 

promulgation, the Commission will 

continue to follow developments for 

this product category and, if 

appropriate, address potential labeling 

at a future date. 

I. Cooking Tops 

Background: EPCA lists ‘‘kitchen 

ranges and ovens’’ as covered 

products.51 In 1979, the Commission 

decided not to require labels for cooking 

tops, as well as ranges and ovens, 

because of the small variability of 

energy use between models.52 Recent 

DOE research, however, found energy 

consumption for gas cooking top models 

now may vary significantly depending 

on burner and grate design. DOE also 

noted energy consumption among 

similar electric cooking top models can 

vary depending on whether the product 

employs induction or resistance heating 

or has smooth or coil elements.53 While 

DOE withdrew its test procedure for 

these products in August 2020,54 in 

2022, DOE reestablished a test 

procedure for conventional cooking 

tops.55

Comments: One commenter, the 

California IOUs, supported labeling. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7573 

56Natural gas industry organizations (the 

‘‘Group’’) raised similar concerns. 

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). 

58NEMA 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.’’ 

59The 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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

60The 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. 

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. 

62See 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)). 

different cost metric such as ‘‘Effective 

Energy Cost’’ to avoid confusion.60

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. 

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 wellestablished 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. 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P≤ 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02FE24.006</GPH>

Federal law prohibits removal of this 

label before consumer purchase. 

EnERGi 

GUIDE 

Television 

XVZ Corporation 

ModelABC-L 

Estimated Yearly 

Energy Cost 

$18 

• Based on 12 cents per kWh 

and 5 hours use per day 

• Estimated year1y electricity 

use of this model: 150 kWh 

• Your cost depends on 

your utility rates and use. 

Visit ftc.gov/energy 

Illustration 1 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7575 

63The 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). 

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

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

65See, e.g., 72 FR 49948, 49953–54 (Aug. 29, 

2007). 

66Rheem 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. 

67Most EnergyGuide labels required by part 305 

routinely display some sort of capacity figure. 

68 88 FR 34624 (May 30, 2023). 

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. 

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. 

F. Boilers 

Background and Comments: As 

discussed below, several boiler 

manufacturers commented on labeling 

issues for their products. Four 

manufacturers recommended significant 

changes, and two others opposed any 

changes to the Rule’s current approach. 

Specifically, manufacturers WM 

Technologies and Marley Engineered 

Products (together, ‘‘The Marley 

Company’’) recommended allowing 

manufacturers to consolidate energyrelated information for multiple models 

within a product family onto a single 

label, in order to minimize 

manufacturers’ burden of maintaining 

multiple model-specific labels as 

required by the current Rule. Similarly, 

manufacturers Crown and Burnham 

(‘‘Crown’’) recommended replacing the 

current model-specific labels with a 

common QR code or similar feature 

directing consumers ‘‘to an on-line 

source where the Energy Guide ‘label’ 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02FE24.007</GPH>

U.S. Government Federal law prohibits removal of this label 

before consumer purchase. 

EnER UIDE 

Instantaneous 

Water Heater - Electricity 

Capacity: 4 gallon per minute 

XYZ Corporation 

Model XXXXXXX 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$229 

Tl 

$179 $235 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

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

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

per minute rating LJ. 

• Estimated energy cost is based on a national average 

electricity cost of LJ cents per kWh. 

• Estimated yearly energy use:_ kWh. 

ftc.gov/energy 

Illustration 2 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7577 

69Rheem 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. 

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. 

71The 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. 

72For 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. 

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 modelspecific 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

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 

§ 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, 

§§ 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 

§ 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). 

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 

§ 305.20 offered by Crown and other 

clarifying language to address concerns 

raised by Crown and the Marley 

Company regarding discrepancies in 

labeling requirements for boilers and 

furnaces (see proposed §§ 305.10(h), 

305.20(f)(11) and (13), and 305.22(c)). 

As suggested by the commenters, the 

proposed amendments adopt a 

consistent approach for labeling boilers 

with more than one input nozzle to be 

installed in the field, clarify that the 

same standard applies to both boilers 

and furnaces, and remove an 

inconsistency in labeling oil and gas 

boilers and furnaces.72 Commenters 

should address whether this clarifying 

amendment is helpful and appropriate. 

VI. Matching Label Format and 

Location to Consumer Shopping 

Patterns 

In the ANPR, the Commission 

solicited comments on alternatives to 

the current ‘‘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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

73According 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. 

74See 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. 

75Lucas 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. 

76Several 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). 

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. 

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.’’ 

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 ‘‘afterthe-fact’’ awareness, in Earthjustice’s 

view, increases the likelihood 

consumers will use the label for future 

purchases. In addition, NYSERDA 

argued energy labels are ‘‘most 

impactful when they can be readily 

accessed wherever a consumer may be 

looking for them, be that online, in 

stores, or in a showroom.’’ 76

In contrast, industry members 

recommended major changes to the 

label placement requirements. AHAM, 

which has long supported a shift from 

paper to electronic labels, argued the 

technology and infrastructure is now 

available to ‘‘easily permit the electronic 

delivery of label information.’’ AHAM 

noted manufacturers already provide 

label information online to comply with 

existing Rule provisions (see, e.g., 

§§ 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 brickand-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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7579 

77According to Whirlpool, such an approach will 

make future label updates and transitions quicker, 

easier, and less confusing for manufacturers, 

retailers, and consumers. 

78Whirlpool 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. 

79See 80 FR 67285, 67291–92 (Nov. 2, 2015), 

codified at 16 CFR 305. 

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

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-ofpurchase 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 noncompliance. In 2015, the FTC added 

specificity to its regulations governing 

adhesives and hang tags to address 

missing labels.79 Earthjustice argued 

reducing such specificity now ‘‘would 

encourage a return to labelling practices 

that deprive consumers of access to the 

important information that EnergyGuide 

labels provide.’’ Earthjustice also noted 

detailed, ‘‘highly standardized’’ format 

and content requirements help ensure 

EnergyGuide labels can be readily 

distinguished ‘‘from a variety of other 

text and images that may be present on 

display models or product packaging.’’ 

Televisions: CTA, an association 

which represents television 

manufacturers, recommended the 

Commission allow electronic labeling 

for covered products incorporating 

electronic displays. Similar to AHAM, 

CTA argued a physical label 

requirement is no longer necessary 

because energy cost information is 

widely available online and frequently 

used by consumers. Therefore, CTA 

urged the Commission to allow sellers 

to display information 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

80AHRI 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). 

81With 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 unitindoor 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.’’ 

82See 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. 

83For further discussion of boiler labeling, see 

Section V of this preamble. 

84BWC 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. 

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. 

86These changes would also apply to dryers and 

miscellaneous refrigerators if they are labeled 

following this proceeding. 

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 elabeling, 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

Thus, AHRI recommended replacing 

the physical label with an electronic 

one. According to AHRI, a QR code link 

to an online label would reduce 

compliance costs for manufacturers 

while still providing key information to 

those consumers and retailers who want 

it. Specifically, AHRI recommended 

requiring smaller QR labels on central 

air conditioners and furnaces which 

link to the full EnergyGuide label on a 

publicly accessible website, such as the 

AHRI directory. For central air 

conditioners and heat pumps where 

appropriate, this smaller label should 

include regional identification 

information to easily communicate the 

DOE regional standards applicable to 

these products—thus helping 

contractors and consumers comply with 

the law.82 Further, AHRI argued because 

efforts to comply with the new DOE 

requirements will result in an extended 

transition to new labels and potential 

market confusion, an electronic label, 

which manufacturers can readily 

update, would ease the shift to new 

metrics while reducing confusion. 

Rheem, however, expressed a 

different view. Although Rheem 

acknowledged the utility of QR codes in 

helping consumers find current 

information, it did not support a 

transition to a QR code or fully 

electronic label. At the same time, 

Rheem argued the EnergyGuide label 

does not need to be attached to the unit 

itself, noting consumers may not want a 

visible label if the unit is installed in a 

living space. Finally, Rheem argued the 

Rule should not require a showroom 

label for water heaters, boilers, and pool 

heaters because only a small portion of 

the models available on the market are 

displayed in a showroom.83 Instead, in 

its view, online sources of information, 

and consultation with professional 

installers offer the best ways to help 

consumers make informed decisions. 

Two water heater industry 

commenters favored keeping the 

existing labels. AHRI asserted most 

manufacturers find value in a physical 

label and are opposed to transitioning 

solely to an electronic label. Similarly, 

BWC, a water heater and boiler 

manufacturer, opposed any changes to 

existing labeling requirements for its 

products. It observed the current labels 

clearly communicate annual energy cost 

and use savings information to 

consumers. It warned any revisions to 

the EnergyGuide label ‘‘would require a 

significant undertaking.’’ In addition, 

BWC stated QR codes would be ‘‘largely 

unnecessary’’ because the label 

information is currently available 

through other sources, such as AHRI’s 

Directory.84

D. Proposed Changes to Label 

Placement Requirements 

To ensure labels are available on 

showroom appliances and to decrease 

unnecessary labeling burdens, the 

Commission proposes several label 

placement amendments for products 

frequently displayed in showrooms 

such as refrigerators, clothes washers, 

and dishwashers. As discussed below, 

the Commission does not propose 

changes to television label placement 

but seeks comment on whether the 

proposed requirements for showroom 

appliances should apply to televisions. 

Finally, the Commission does not 

propose any changes for label placement 

for heating and cooling products but 

seeks comment on whether the Rule 

should allow manufacturers to include 

the label with the product shipment 

instead of affixing it to the unit itself.85

Under proposed § 305.13, 

manufacturers of refrigerators/freezers, 

clothes washers, and dishwashers must 

ship all units with a physical label.86

However, the proposed requirements for 

affixing adhesive labels and hang tags to 

the product itself would only apply to 

units designated by the manufacturer for 

showroom display. For all other units, 

the Rule would require manufacturers to 

include a paper label with the unit in 

some fashion (e.g., in the literature bag 

or another location consumers and 

retailers can easily see when opening 

the product’s packaging). Additionally, 

the proposal requires retailers to ensure 

any refrigerator, dishwasher, clothes 

washer, or dryer unit they choose to 

display in a showroom has a label in a 

location visible to a consumer 

examining the product. Retailers are in 

the best position to ensure labels 

continue to be displayed on their 

showroom floors. The proposed Rule, 

however, does not impose any 

prescriptive label placement or 

attachment requirements for retailers 

both because the labels do not need to 

survive transportation and retailers, 

under the proposal, would have the 

obligation to replace any missing labels. 

In addition, to effectuate the proposed 

retailer requirements, the proposed Rule 

requires manufacturers to furnish labels 

for these appliances to retailers upon 

request to ease retailer burdens. Given 

this new responsibility, the proposal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7581 

87Labels are already widely available through 

retail and manufacturer websites as well as DOE’s 

website as required by the Rule. 

88Earthjustice argued that replacing physical 

labels with QR codes would be inconsistent with 

EPCA. We do not see the need to address that issue 

at this time. However, to the extent manufacturers 

want to communicate additional information to 

consumers, they may do so by providing other 

point-of-sale material, including QR codes, separate 

from the physical label. 

89 76 FR 1038, 1044–45 (Jan. 6, 2011). 90 72 FR 49948, 49956 (Aug. 29, 2007). 

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. 

92The 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. 

provides a year for retailers to comply. 

The Commission seeks comments on all 

aspects of this proposal. 

For consumers, the proposed § 305.13 

helps ensure every appliance displayed 

in a showroom has an EnergyGuide 

label, including by requiring retailers to 

replace labels. However, the proposal 

does so without imposing unnecessary 

costs on manufacturers. Specifically, 

manufacturers would no longer have to 

affix adhesive or hang tag labels on 

millions of units that consumers will 

never see until after the unit is 

purchased. Instead, with the exception 

of a small number of showroomdesignated 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

In addition, the Commission does not 

propose allowing television labels to 

appear on screen in lieu of physical 

labels. As the Commission explained in 

an earlier proceeding, the method for 

implementing an effective electronic 

label is unclear.89 Such a provision 

would require retailers to display an 

EnergyGuide label at all times, and the 

Commission has no evidence regarding 

the feasibility of doing so. Specifically, 

if retailers do not continuously power 

up all their showroom units, the image 

might appear only periodically. Further, 

retail staff or consumers may turn off 

the product’s label-displaying mode to 

provide shoppers with an unobstructed 

image. Such intermittent display of the 

label would make it less likely the 

required information was available to 

consumers examining products in stores 

and therefore could significantly reduce 

the labels’ ability to assist consumers in 

their purchasing decisions. However, 

given the lack of record evidence, the 

Commission seeks comment on this 

issue, including whether the 

Commission should follow the same 

approach for televisions it has proposed 

here for labeling appliances (i.e., 

requiring manufacturers to place labels 

only on showroom-designated models 

and creating a new requirement for 

retailers to ensure labels on any model 

they choose to display). 

For air conditioners, furnaces, and 

water heaters, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the Rule should 

allow manufacturers to simply ship a 

paper label with the product. The 

Commission recognizes these products 

generally do not appear in showrooms. 

Thus, consumers are unlikely to see 

labels affixed to those products prior to 

purchase. The Commission does not, 

however, propose this change in this 

NPRM because, as the Commission has 

observed in the past, labels attached to 

these types of units can help consumers 

in future purchases.90 Commenters 

should address whether this reasoning 

remains valid. For central air 

conditioners, commenters should also 

address whether labels shipped with the 

product (but not affixed to it) will 

adequately inform installers about DOE 

regional standards requirements. 

Finally, commenters should address 

whether the Commission should follow 

the same approach for televisions it has 

proposed here for labeling appliances 

(i.e., requiring manufacturers to place 

labels only on showroom-designated 

models and creating a new requirement 

for retailers to ensure labels on any 

model they choose to display). 

VII. Proposals for New Label Content 

Background and Comments: Several 

commenters recommended the 

Commission consider ways to provide 

consumers with climate-related 

information and other environmental 

impact data such as full fuel cycle data. 

For example, NYSERDA recommended 

including greenhouse gas emissions 

(‘‘GHG’’) information on the labels to 

help consumers understand the broader 

environmental impact of their 

purchases. To convey variability in 

emissions related to electricity use 

across the country, NYSERDA suggested 

displaying a range of emissions based 

on the average grid intensities collected 

by the EPA and the U.S. Energy 

Information Agency (‘‘EIA’’).91

The National Propane Gas Association 

(‘‘NPGA’’), the American Gas 

Association (‘‘AGA’’), and the American 

Public Gas Association (‘‘APGA’’) 

(collectively ‘‘the Group’’) 

recommended adopting a Full Fuel 

Cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy label for 

household appliances. This label’s 

disclosure would include estimates of 

the energy used in transportation, 

distribution, generation, production, 

and extraction. The Group argued such 

a label would be consistent with the 

agency’s mission to providing 

consumers complete and accurate 

information under the law. They further 

argued including such information 

would promote fuel neutrality and 

advance policy priorities by helping to 

tackle climate change. Finally, the 

commenters contended this labeling is 

now feasible because the FFC test 

procedures necessary to adopt this new 

label are straightforward and already 

available to the FTC from DOE.92

The Group further recommended 

streamlining the existing label to consist 

of the headlines ‘‘RESIDENTIAL 

ENERGY COST & EMISSIONS’’ and 

‘‘ENERGYGUIDE’’ above a QR code, 

which would link consumers to the 

energy efficiency and associated FFC 

cost of products where data is available. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose amending the label to convert 

it into a QR code linking consumers to 

FFC information as suggested by some 

commenters. As discussed elsewhere in 

this Notice, replacing the current label 

with a QR code is likely to decrease the 

label’s utility for consumers (see 

Sections V.F and VI supra). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7582 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

93Under 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). 

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

(FTC reporting requirements). 

95 81 FR at 63636. 

96 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013). 

In addition, the Commission does not 

propose amending existing labels to add 

FFC or GHG emissions information 

about individual products.93 It is not 

clear, for instance, whether such 

additional technical information is 

helpful or whether the information 

already on the label (e.g., the annual 

fuel costs), provides an adequate proxy 

for relative comparisons of the FFC 

impacts of competing products. 

Additionally, as the electricity grid 

evolves toward renewables and away 

from sources such as coal, the difference 

in emissions between fuels may narrow; 

thus diluting the relevance of such fuel 

comparisons. Further, additional FFC or 

GHG emissions information would 

clutter the label, potentially confusing 

consumers, and otherwise detract from 

the central disclosures related to the 

energy cost or energy efficiency of the 

labeled product. Accordingly, weighing 

the uncertain benefits of such a 

disclosure against the likely reduction 

in the label’s utility, the Commission 

declines to propose these changes. 

As an alternative, the Commission 

could explore, with DOE, creating 

online consumer resources to provide 

FFC and/or GHG information for 

individual covered products, even if 

such information is not included on the 

EnergyGuide labels. However, before 

committing resources to such a 

combined agency effort, the 

Commission invites comment on such 

an approach. 

VIII. Additional Issues 

Commenters also raised proposals and 

questions about a range of additional 

issues including lamp reporting, 

potential lamp and ceiling fan labels, 

transitional label language, range 

updates, compliance dates for ranges, 

television data updates, a categorical 

ranking system, bilingual information, 

coordination with other agencies, 

prescriptive requirements, and online 

label requirements. The following 

section summarizes these comments 

and provides the Commission’s 

analysis. 

A. Lamp Reporting 

Background and Comments: The 

Commission sought comment in the 

ANPR on whether the Rule should 

require lamp manufacturers to include 

information regarding their Lighting 

Facts labels with their DOE data reports. 

The Rule already requires 

manufacturers of other covered 

consumer products to provide a website 

address linking to their EnergyGuide 

labels as part of their required data 

reports, which manufacturers submit 

through the DOE reporting system.94

The Commission did not extend this 

requirement to the Lighting Facts labels 

in 2016 given appropriation restrictions 

placed on DOE spending related to light 

bulbs at that time. Instead, the 

Commission stated it would revisit the 

issue at ‘‘a later date should 

circumstances warrant.’’ 95

In response, NEMA urged the 

Commission to refrain from requiring 

links to Lighting Facts labels in reports 

submitted via the DOE data website 

(CCMS) because current realities of the 

consumer marketplace do not warrant it. 

According to NEMA, the ‘‘logistical 

coordination of the digital location of 

online content over time is very 

complicated for lamp products.’’ In 

addition, because the label already 

contains the product characteristics, 

additional DOE reporting would only 

provide duplicative information. NEMA 

also argued the proposal would increase 

the burden on the FTC to review this 

data, much of which has little relevance 

to consumers. 

Discussion: The Commission does not 

propose requiring lamp manufacturers 

to include information regarding their 

Lighting Facts labels with their data 

reports. Commenters did not identify 

any specific need or benefit from 

requiring this information in DOE 

reports. The Commission can revisit this 

issue if developments suggest a need. 

B. Transitional Label Language 

Background: The Commission sought 

comment on whether to phase out 

language on refrigerator and clothes 

washer labels added in 2013 to help 

distinguish models tested with the 

current DOE procedure from those rated 

with an older version.96 This language, 

which advises consumers to ‘‘Compare 

ONLY to other labels with yellow 

numbers,’’ appears to now be obsolete 

and crowds the label with irrelevant 

information. 

Comments: Commenters supported an 

eventual shift to the original label but 

recommended the Commission wait to 

do so until DOE completes certain 

changes to its requirements for the 

affected products. Specifically, AHAM 

suggested delaying revisions to the 

‘‘transitional’’ labels until a new DOE 

test procedure provides an appropriate 

time to allow a return to the ‘‘normal’’ 

label in a single step. In its view, 

removing the current transitional 

language before such a test change could 

confuse consumers, burden 

manufacturers, and create complications 

should any new test procedures warrant 

similar transitional language. 

Whirlpool agreed, stating it was 

unaware of any consumer complaints or 

confusion about the current label. It 

added upcoming changes to the DOE 

clothes washer test procedure are likely 

to be significant and thus may provide 

a logical time to transition to the 

conventional label. However, since the 

expected changes to the refrigerator/ 

freezer test procedures are not as 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7583 

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

98EPCA 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). 99 88 FR 16082 (Mar. 5, 2023). 

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 fiveyear update schedule first established in 

2007) 97 strikes a reasonable balance 

between providing consumers updated 

information and minimizing the 

problems associated with frequent 

changes. 

Likewise, the Commission does not 

propose changing the national cost 

estimates on the label to provide more 

granular information. The label’s annual 

cost disclosure provides an estimate to 

allow consumers to compare the energy 

consumption of competing products 

quickly and effectively. Adding 

information degrades the use and utility 

of the label by making it harder to use 

and understand. The label already 

addresses this issue by stating it only 

provides an estimate. 

D. Compliance Dates for Ranges 

Background and Comments: 

Commenters also discussed the 

compliance period for future label 

updates. The current Rule requires 

manufacturers to implement range and 

cost changes within 90 days after 

issuance of updates (see § 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.’’ 

Discussion: In response to comments, 

the Commission proposes extending the 

transition period for label range and cost 

updates under § 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 

§ 305.11(a)(3) to require reporting the 

following data for televisions: brand 

name, model number, screen size, onmode power consumption, standby 

mode power consumption, dynamic 

luminance, and annual energy 

consumption. This proposal would 

ensure manufacturers submit data that 

matches the metrics yielded by the new 

test procedure rather than obsolete data. 

F. Light Bulb and Ceiling Fan Labels 

Background and Discussion: In the 

ANPR, the Commission sought 

comment on 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 § 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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

101 16 CFR 305.23(b)(6) and 16 CFR 305.23(c)(4) 

(label information may be presented in a second 

language either by using separate labels for each 

language or in a bilingual label with the English text 

in the format required by this section immediately 

followed by the text in the second language). 

102https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy-efficiency/ 

energy-efficiency-regulations/general-servicelamps/24407. 

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. 

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. 

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 nonEnglish speakers. Commenters have not 

provided any evidence non-English 

speakers find it impractical to use the 

labels’ key disclosures, which are 

primarily numeric (e.g., annual energy 

cost in dollars), to compare products. 

However, consistent with the 

comments, the FTC staff will explore 

creating additional guidance to better 

convey the label’s information to nonEnglish speakers. The Commission 

invites commenters to address what 

guidance would be helpful to 

consumers, manufacturers, and retailers. 

Additionally, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether and how mobile 

translation applications may help 

consumers understand labels. 

I. Coordination With Other Agencies 

Background and Comments: Several 

commenters urged the Commission to 

coordinate 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-byside U.S. and Canada energy label, or a 

front-to-back configuration. 

Commenters also urged the FTC to 

increase its coordination with DOE and 

EPA. For example, Whirlpool 

recommended the FTC ‘‘make every 

attempt to align the compliance dates of 

any EnergyGuide label amendments’’ 

with changes to DOE test procedures 

and efficiency standards, and EPA 

ENERGY STAR program requirements. 

Specifically, Whirlpool urged the FTC 

to wait to implement significant changes 

to the EnergyGuide labels until the 

compliance dates for the amended 

energy conservation and ENERGY STAR 

requirements. 

Discussion: The Commission agrees 

cooperation with other Federal, State, 

and 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 § 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 

§ 305.20(a) related to picas, centering, 

and depth, as well as requirements 

about type style and setting in 

§ 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 § 305.20(d) because they are 

unnecessarily prescriptive. Crown, a 

boiler manufacturer, agreed, stating that 

‘‘label weight and material are irrelevant 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7585 

103See also The Marley Company comments. 

104 16 CFR 305.27. 

105Other commenters shared experiences 

indicating they may benefit from clarifying the 

‘‘close proximity’’ requirement for online labels. 

One commenter (Ring) stated they rely on online 

research to narrow their choices before visiting 

stores. Another (DuSaint) stated he found online 

comparison shopping for appliances to be generally 

helpful, other than in situations where appliances 

require immediate replacement through a visit to a 

physical store. Merriam also argued the energy 

labels ‘‘should be clearly and consistently included 

in product pictures for online retailers’’ but did not 

specify any changes to the existing online ‘‘catalog’’ 

requirements in the Rule. 

106 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.; see also 5 CFR 

1320.3(c). 

107The 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. 

108These 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. 

as long as the existing durability 

requirements are met.’’ 103

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., 

§ 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

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 § 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). 

The proposed amendments include 

new labeling requirements for air 

cleaners, clothes dryers, miscellaneous 

refrigerator products, and portable 

electric spas (collectively referred below 

as ‘‘new labeled products’’) that 

constitute information collections under 

the PRA. The proposed amendments 

also contain requirements which reduce 

the manufacturers’ burden associated 

with labeling certain appliances and 

increase the burden for retailers by 

requiring them to ensure displayed 

products bear labels. Accordingly, the 

Commission is seeking OMB clearance 

specific to the Rule amendments.107

Burden estimates below are based on 

Census data, DOE figures and estimates, 

public comments, the agency’s general 

knowledge of manufacturing practices, 

and trade association advice and figures. 

FTC staff estimates that there are 100 

manufacturers producing 5,000 basic 

models (i.e., units with essentially 

identical physical and electrical 

characteristics) of the proposed new 

products (air cleaners—700; clothes 

dryers—1,700; miscellaneous 

refrigeration products—1,100; portable 

electric spas—1,500). 

Reporting: The Rule requires 

manufacturers of covered products to 

annually submit a report for each 

current model containing the same 

information that must be submitted to 

the DOE pursuant to 10 CFR part 429. 

In lieu of submitting the required 

information to the Commission, 

manufacturers may submit such 

information to DOE directly via the 

agency’s Compliance Certification 

Management System, available at 

https://regulations.doe.gov/ccms, as 

provided by 10 CFR 429.12. Because 

manufacturers are already required to 

submit these reports to DOE, FTC staff 

estimates any additional burden 

associated with providing the 

information to the FTC is minimal. FTC 

staff estimates the average reporting 

burden for manufacturers of the 

proposed new products will be 

approximately 15 hours per 

manufacturer. Based on this estimate, 

the annual reporting burden for 

manufacturers of new labeled products 

is 1,500 hours (15 hours × 100 

manufacturers). Staff estimates that 

information processing staff, at an 

hourly rate of $18.97,108 will typically 

perform the required tasks, for an 

estimated annual labor cost of $28,455. 

Manufacturer Labeling: The 

amendments require that manufacturers 

create labels for the four new labeled 

product categories. Since EPCA and the 

Rule specify the content and format for 

the required labels, and FTC staff 

provide online label templates, 

manufacturers need only input the 

energy consumption figures and other 

product-specific information derived 

from testing. FTC staff estimates the 

time to incorporate the required 

information into labels and labelcovered products is five hours per basic 

model. Accordingly, staff estimates the 

approximate annual burden involved in 

creating labels for covered products is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

109 Id. 

110As 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. 

111BLS, supra n.108. 

112The FTC has applied different test hour 

burdens depending on the product: air cleaners— 

700 basic models × 0.25 × 40 hours = 7,000 hours; 

clothes dryers—1,700 basic models × 0.25 × 4 hours 

= 1,700 hours; portable electric spas—1500 basic 

models × 0.25 × 12 hours = 4,500 hours; MREFs— 

1,100 basic models × 0.25 × 8 hours = 2,200 hours. 

113BLS, supra n.108. 

114See 16 CFR 305.28. 

115BLS, supra n.108. 

116 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

117 5 U.S.C. 605. The proposed conforming 

changes to central air conditioner descriptors will 

have no impact on the Rule’s current burden. 

25,000 hours [5,000 basic models × 5 

hours]. Staff estimates that information 

processing staff, at an hourly rate of 

$18.97,109 will typically perform the 

required tasks, for an estimated annual 

labor cost of $474,250. 

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 × 4 seconds). Staff 

estimates that information processing 

staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97, will 

typically perform the required tasks, for 

an estimated annual labor cost of $455. 

In addition, the proposal would relax 

label attachment requirements for 

refrigerators and freezers, dishwashers, 

and clothes washers by allowing 

manufacturers to ship an unaffixed label 

with most units (about 24 million units). 

The FTC estimates the reduction in 

burden from this proposed change to be 

26,667 hours (24,000,000 × 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 × .20 × 14,000 × 5 minutes). 

Staff estimates that retail sales staff, at 

an hourly rate of $15.62,111 will 

typically perform the required tasks, for 

an estimated annual labor cost of 

$182,239. 

Testing: Manufacturers of the new 

labeled products must test each basic 

model they produce to determine energy 

usage, but the majority of tests 

conducted are required by DOE rules. 

As a result, it is likely only a small 

portion of the tests conducted are 

attributable to the Rule’s requirements. 

In addition, manufacturers need not 

subject each basic model to testing 

annually; they must retest only if the 

product design changes in such a way 

as to affect energy consumption. FTC 

staff estimates that 25% of all basic 

models are tested annually 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. 

Online Label Posting: The proposal 

would require manufacturers to post 

images of their EnergyGuide labels 

online for the new labeled products. 

Staff estimates the burden associated 

with this requirement based on the 

number of models of covered products. 

Given approximately 5,000 total models 

at an estimated five minutes per model, 

staff estimates that this requirement 

entails a burden of 417 hours (5,000 

basic models × 5 minutes). Staff 

estimates that information processing 

staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97,113 will 

typically perform the required tasks, for 

an estimated annual labor cost of 

$7,910. 

Recordkeeping: The Rule also requires 

manufacturers of covered products to 

retain records of test data generated in 

performing the tests to derive 

information included on labels.114 The 

FTC estimates the annual recordkeeping 

burden for manufacturers of new 

labeled products will be approximately 

one minute per basic model to store 

relevant data. Accordingly, the 

estimated annual recordkeeping burden 

would be approximately 83 hours (5,000 

basic models × one minute). Staff 

estimates that information processing 

staff, at an hourly rate of $18.97, will 

typically perform the required tasks, for 

an estimated annual labor cost of 

$1,575. 

Online and Retail Catalog 

Disclosures: Staff estimates there are 

approximately 400 sellers of new 

labeled product categories who are 

subject to the Rule’s catalog disclosure 

requirements. Staff has previously 

estimated covered online and catalog 

sellers spend approximately 17 hours 

per year to incorporate relevant product 

data for products that are currently 

covered by the Rule. Staff estimates the 

requirements for new labeled product 

categories will add an additional 4 

hours per year in incremental burden 

per seller. Staff estimates these 

additions will result in an incremental 

burden of 1,600 hours (400 sellers × 4 

hours annually). Staff estimates that 

information processing staff, at an 

hourly rate of $18.97,115 will typically 

perform the required tasks, for an 

estimated incremental annual labor cost 

of $30,352. 

Estimated annual non-labor cost 

burden: Staff anticipates that 

manufacturers are not likely to require 

any significant capital costs to comply 

with the amendments. 

X. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) 116 requires that the 

Commission conduct an analysis of the 

anticipated economic impact of the 

proposed amendment on small entities. 

The RFA requires that the Commission 

provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) with a proposed rule, 

and a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) with a final rule, if 

any, unless the Commission certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.117 While the 

Commission recognizes that some of the 

affected manufacturers and retailers 

may qualify as small businesses under 

the relevant thresholds as determined 

by the Small Business Administration, it 

does not anticipate a substantial number 

of these small entities will face a 

significant burden under the proposed 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7587 

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

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. 

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. 

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:// 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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’’) 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

■ 2. Amend § 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: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 305.3 by adding 

paragraphs (k), (l), (m), and (n) to read 

as follows: 

§ 305.3 Description of appliances and 

consumer electronics. 

* * * * * 

(k) Room air cleaner means an air 

cleaner that— 

(1) Is a portable or wall mounted 

(fixed) unit, excluding ceiling mounted 

unit, that plugs into an electrical outlet; 

(2) Operates with a fan for air 

circulation; and 

(3) Contains means to remove, 

destroy, and/or deactivate particulates. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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. 

■ 4. Revise § 305.9 to read as follows: 

§ 305.9 Duty to provide labels on websites 

and to retailers. 

(a) For each covered product required 

by this part to bear an EnergyGuide or 

Lighting Facts label, the manufacturer 

must make a copy of the label available 

on a publicly accessible website in a 

manner that allows catalog sellers to 

hyperlink to the label or download it for 

use in websites or paper catalogs. The 

label for each specific model must 

remain on the website for six months 

after production of that model ceases. 

(b) For refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, miscellaneous refrigeration 

products, freezers, dishwashers, clothes 

washers, and clothes dryers, 

manufacturers must provide a copy of 

the label required by this part to a 

retailer upon request of that retailer, in 

a form requested by the retailer, such as 

physical or electronic. 

■ 5. Amend § 305.10 by revising 

paragraph (h) and adding paragraphs 

(m), (n), (o), and (p) to read as follows: 

§ 305.10 Determinations of capacity. 

* * * * * 

(h) Furnaces (including boilers). The 

capacity shall be the heating capacity in 

Btu’s per hour, rounded to the nearest 

1,000 Btu’s per hour, as determined 

according to appendices N and EE to 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, as applicable. 

* * * * * 

(m) Room air cleaners: The capacity 

shall be the effective room size 

according to10 CFR parts 429 and 430, 

subpart B, with rounding determined in 

accordance with 10 CFR part 430. 

(n) Clothes dryers: The capacity shall 

be the drum capacity as determined 

according to Department of Energy test 

procedures in 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, expressed in terms of ‘‘Capacity (tub 

volume)’’ in cubic feet, rounded to the 

nearest one-tenth of a cubic foot, and 

the capacity class designations 

‘‘standard’’ or ‘‘compact.’’ 

(o) Miscellaneous refrigeration 

product: The capacity shall be the total 

refrigerated volume (VT) in cubic feet, 

rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a 

cubic foot, as determined according to 

appendix A to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B. 

(p) Portable Electric Spa: The capacity 

shall be the fill volume, which means 

the volume of water held by the portable 

electric spa when it is filled as specified 

in appendix GG to 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B. 

■ 6. Amend § 305.11 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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: 

Product category 

Deadline 

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. 

Product category 

Deadline 

for data 

submission 

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. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 305.12 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 305.12 Ranges of comparability on the 

required labels. 

(a) Range of estimated annual energy 

costs or energy efficiency ratings. The 

range of estimated annual operating 

costs or energy efficiency ratings for 

each covered product (except 

televisions, fluorescent lamp ballasts, 

lamps, metal halide lamp fixtures, 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

urinals) shall be taken from the 

appropriate appendix to this part in 

effect at the time the labels are affixed 

to the product. The Commission shall 

publish revised ranges in the Federal 

Register in 2027. When the ranges are 

revised, all information disseminated 

after 180 days following the publication 

of the revision shall conform to the 

revised ranges. Products that have been 

labeled prior to the effective date of a 

modification under this section need 

not be relabeled. 

(b) Representative average unit energy 

cost. The Representative Average Unit 

Energy Cost to be used on labels as 

required by §§ 305.14 through 305.19 

and disclosures as required by § 305.27 

are listed in appendices K1 and K2 to 

this part. The Commission shall publish 

revised Representative Average Unit 

Energy Cost figures in the Federal 

Register in 2027. When the cost figures 

are revised, all information 

disseminated after 180 days following 

the publication of the revision shall 

conform to the new cost figure. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 305.13 to read as follows: 

§ 305.13 Layout, format, and placement of 

labels for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

miscellaneous refrigeration products, 

dishwashers, clothes washers, clothes 

dryers, water heaters, room air 

conditioners, portable air conditioners, 

room air cleaners, portable electric spas, 

and pool heaters. 

(b) Layout. Energy labels shall use one 

size, similar colors, and typefaces with 

consistent positioning of headline, copy, 

and charts to maintain uniformity for 

immediate consumer recognition and 

readability. With the exception of 

instantaneous water heaters, trim size 

dimensions for the labels shall be as 

follows: Width must be between 51⁄4

inches and 51⁄2 inches (13.34 cm. and 

13.97 cm.); length must be between 73⁄8

inches (18.73 cm.) and 75⁄8 (19.37 cm.). 

Labels for instantaneous water heaters 

may be as small as a 33⁄4 inches (9.53 

cm.) in width and 47⁄8 inches (12.38 

cm.) in length. All positioning, spacing, 

type sizes, and line widths should be 

similar to and consistent with the 

prototype and sample labels in 

appendix L to this part. 

(c) Type style and setting. The Arial 

Narrow series typeface or equivalent 

shall be used exclusively on the label. 

Specific sizes and faces to be used are 

indicated on the prototype labels. No 

hyphenation should be used in setting 

headline or copy text. Positioning and 

spacing should follow the prototypes 

closely. See the prototype labels for 

specific directions. 

(d) Colors. Except as indicated in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section, the basic 

colors of all labels covered by this 

section shall be process yellow or 

equivalent and process black. The label 

shall be printed full bleed process 

yellow. All type and graphics shall be 

print process black. 

(e) Label types. Except as indicated in 

paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this 

section, the labels must be affixed to the 

product in the form of an adhesive label 

for any product covered by this section, 

or in the form of a hang tag for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator 

products, dishwashers, clothes washers, 

and clothes dryers as follows: 

(1) Adhesive labels. All adhesive 

labels should be applied so they can be 

easily removed without the use of tools 

or liquids, other than water. The 

adhesion capacity and paper stock 

should be sufficient to prevent their 

dislodgment during normal handling 

throughout the chain of distribution to 

the retailer or consumer. In lieu of a 

label with adhesive backing, 

manufacturers may adhere the label 

with adhesive tape, provided the tape is 

affixed along the entire top and bottom 

of the label. 

(2) Hang tags. Labels may be affixed 

to the product interior in the form of a 

hang tag using cable ties or double 

strings connected through reinforced 

punch holes, or with attachment and 

label material of equivalent or greater 

strength and durability. If paper stock is 

used for hang tags, it 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-rightfront corner of the product’s front 

exterior. However, some other 

prominent location may be used as long 

as the label will not become dislodged 

during normal handling throughout the 

chain of distribution to the retailer or 

consumer. The label can be displayed in 

the form of a flap tag adhered to the top 

of the appliance and bent (folded at 90°) 

to hang over the front, as long as this 

can be done with assurance that it will 

be readily visible. 

(2) Hang tags. A hang tag shall be 

affixed to the interior of the product in 

such a position that it can be easily read 

by a consumer examining the product. 

A hang tag can be affixed in any 

position that meets this requirement as 

long as the label will not become 

dislodged during normal handling 

throughout the chain of distribution to 

the retailer or consumer. Hang tags may 

only be affixed in refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, 

miscellaneous refrigerator products, 

dishwashers, clothes washers, and 

clothes dryers. 

(3) Non-Showroom-Designated 

Appliance Labels. Labels for units 

covered by paragraph (e)(4) of this 

section must be shipped with the 

product in a location readily visible to 

retailers and consumers examining the 

contents of the product’s packaging. 

(g) Retailer Responsibilities. Retailers 

who choose to display any refrigerator, 

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. 

■ 9. Amend § 305.14 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a)(9)(iv) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 ll

cents per kWh. 

ftc.gov/energy. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Amend § 305.15 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7591 

§ 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 ll of cents per 

kWh and natural gas cost of $ ll 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 ll cents per 

kWh or natural gas cost of $ ll per 

therm]. 

ftc.gov/energy. 

(12) The following statement shall 

appear on each label as illustrated in the 

prototype and sample labels in 

appendix L: 

Federal law prohibits removal of this 

label before consumer purchase. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Amend § 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: 

§ 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 ll

cents per kWh and a seasonal use of 8 hours 

use per day over a 3-month period. 

For more information, visit www.ftc.gov/ 

energy. 

(10) Labels for air cleaners must 

contain the model’s estimated annual 

energy consumption as determined in 

accordance with this part and as 

indicated on the sample labels in 

appendix L. Labels must also contain 

the model’s independent energy factor 

and clean air delivery rate, as 

applicable, as determined in accordance 

with this part and displayed on the label 

consistent with the sample labels in 

appendix L to this part. 

(11) Labels for air cleaners must 

contain a statement as illustrated in the 

prototype labels in appendix L of this 

part and specified as follows (fill in the 

blanks with the appropriate model type, 

year, energy type, and energy cost 

figure): 

Your costs will depend on your utility 

rates and use. 

Cost range based only on models of 

similar capacity. 

The Clean Air Delivery Rate is based 

on the removal of particulate matter that 

is 2.5 micrometers wide or smaller 

(PM2.5 CADR). 

Estimated annual energy cost is based 

on 16 hours of operation per day and a 

national average electricity cost of ll

cents per kWh. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/energy. 

(12) The following statement shall 

appear on each label as illustrated in the 

prototype and sample labels in 

appendix L: 

Federal law prohibits removal of this label 

before consumer purchase. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 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: 

§ 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

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 [ll] 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 305.20 by revising 

paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (f)(11), and 

(f)(13) to read as follows: 

§ 305.20 Labeling for central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces. 

(a) Layout. All energy labels for 

central air conditioners, heat pumps, 

and furnaces (including boilers) shall 

use one size, similar colors, and 

typefaces with consistent positioning of 

headline, copy, and charts to maintain 

uniformity for immediate consumer 

recognition and readability. Trim size 

dimensions for all labels shall be as 

follows: width must be between 51⁄4

inches and 51⁄2 inches (13.34 cm. and 

13.97 cm.); length must be between 73⁄8

inches (18.78 cm.) and 75⁄8 (19.34 cm.). 

All positioning, spacing, type sizes, and 

line widths should be similar to and 

consistent with the prototype and 

sample labels in appendix L. 

(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. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 305.22 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 15. Amend § 305.27 by revising 

paragraph (a)(1)(i), paragraph (a)(2), and 

paragraph (b)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 305.27 Paper catalogs and websites. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Products required to bear 

EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts labels. 

All websites advertising covered 

products required to have an 

EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label 

under this part must display, for each 

model, a recognizable and legible image 

of the label required for that product by 

this part. The website may hyperlink to 

the image of the label using a 

recognizable thumbnail image or the 

sample EnergyGuide and Lighting Facts 

icons depicted in appendix L of this 

part. The website must hyperlink the 

image in a way that does not require 

consumers to save the hyperlinked 

image to view it. 

* * * * * 

(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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 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 [$ 

llper 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 llcents per 

kWh for electricity and $llper 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 305.23(g)(1). 

(E) Ceiling fans. All the information 

required by § 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 

[ll] cents per kWh,’’ and a disclosure 

stating ‘‘Your operating costs will 

depend on your utility rates and use. 

The estimated operating cost is based on 

a [electricity, natural gas, propane, or 

oil] cost of [$__per kWh, therm, or 

gallon]. For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/energy.’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Add Appendix B4 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix B4 to Part 305— 

Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products 

Range Information 

Manufacturer’s rated 

total refrigerated volume 

in cubic feet 

Range of 

estimated annual 

energy costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 2.5 ................ (*) (*) 

2.6 to 5.0 ...................... (*) (*) 

5.1 to 7.5 ...................... (*) (*) 

7.6 to 10.0 .................... (*) (*) 

10.1 to 12.5 .................. (*) (*) 

12.6 to 15.0 .................. (*) (*) 

15.1 to 17.5 .................. (*) (*) 

17.6 to 20.0 .................. (*) (*) 

20.1 to 22.5 .................. (*) (*) 

22.6 and over ............... (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

■ 17. Add Appendix E3 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix E3 to Part 305—Air Cleaners 

Range Information 

Manufacturer’s rated 

room size in square feet 

Range of 

estimated annual 

energy costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Small (15–154 sq. ft.) ... (*) (*) 

Medium (155–235 sq. 

ft.) .............................. (*) (*) 

Manufacturer’s rated 

room size in square feet 

Range of 

estimated annual 

energy costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Large (236 and greater 

sq. ft.) ........................ (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

■ 18. Add Appendix F3 and F4 to read 

as follows: 

Appendix F3 to Part 305—Compact 

Clothes Dryers Range Information 

Capacity 

Range of 

estimated annual 

energy costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Compact ....................... (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

Appendix F4 to Part 305—Standard 

Clothes Dryers Range Information 

Capacity 

Range of 

estimated annual 

energy costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Standard ....................... (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

■ 19. Add Appendix J3 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix J3 to Part 305—Portable 

Electric Spas Range Information 

Manufacturer’s rated 

capacity in gallons 

Range of 

estimated annual 

heating costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

200 sq. ft. or less .......... (*) (*) 

201–400 sq. ft ............... (*) (*) 

401–600 sq. ft ............... (*) (*) 

600 sq. ft. or larger ....... (*) (*) 

(*) No data. 

■ 20. Revise Appendix K1 to read as 

follows: 

Appendix K1 to Part 305— 

Representative Average Unit Energy 

Costs for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, 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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
7594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

freezers, miscellaneous refrigerator 

products, clothes washers, clothes 

dryers, dishwashers, air cleaners, 

portable electric spas, and water heaters. 

This Table is based on information 

published by the U.S. Department of 

Energy in 2022. 

Type of energy In commonly used terms As required by DOE test procedure 

Electricity ............................................................ ¢14/kWh 1 2 ....................................................... $.1400/kWh. 

Natural Gas ........................................................ $1.21/therm,3 $12.6/MCF 5 6 ............................ $0.00001209/Btu.4

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. 

4Btu stands for British thermal unit. 

5 MCF stands for 1,000 cubic feet. 

6For the purposes of this table, 1 cubic foot of natural gas has an energy equivalence of 1,039 Btu. 

7For the purposes of this table, one gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,500 Btu. 

8For the purposes of this table, one gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu. 

9For the purposes of this table, one gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu. 

■ 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 

* * * * * 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7595 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02FE24.008</GPH>

Sample Label 18 - Air Cleaner 

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

Air Cleaner 

Recommended Room Size: 100 sq. ft. 

XV Corporation 

Model CKMR7 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$60 

T 

$43 $84 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

125 2.5 

Clean Air Delivery Rate Integrated Energy Factor 

Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on models of similar capacity. 

• The Clean Air Delivery Rate is based on the removal of particulate matter that is 2.5 

micrometers wide or smaller (PM25 CADR). 

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

electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh. 

fie.gov/energy 
7596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02FE24.009</GPH>

Sample Label 19 - Portable Electric Spa 

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

Portable Electric Spa 

Fill Volume: ___ _ 

ABC Corporation 

ModelWETXJ 

Estimated Yearly Heating Costs 

$90 

T 

$65 $127 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

150watts 

Energy Use 

Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on models of similar capactty. 

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

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

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

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

ftc.gov/energy 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 23 / Friday, February 2, 2024 / Proposed Rules 7597 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP02FE24.010</GPH>

Sample Label 20 - Clothes Dryer 

U.S. Government Federal law prohiMs removal of this label before consumer purchase. 

Clothes Dryer - Electricity 

Capacity: Standard 

Estimated Yearly Energy Cost 

$90 

T 

$65 

Cost Range of Similar Models 

Estimated Yearly Electricity Use 

ABC Corporation 

ModelXJHN 

$127 

Your cost will depend on your utility rates and use. 

• Cost range based only on models of similar capacity. 

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

electricity cost of 14 cents per kWh. 

fie.gov/energy