Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66307 

1The comment must be accompanied by an 

explicit request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

and must identify the specific portions of the 

comment to be withheld from the public record. 

The request will be granted or denied by the 

Commission’s General Counsel, consistent with 

Continued 

requirements for Air Force, Navy, and 

Marine aircraft operating over the 

Falcon Bombing Range. Specifically, R–

5601F would provide additional 

maneuvering area needed for aircraft 

conducting training in adjacent 

restricted areas R–5601B and R–5601C 

which are located over the West Range 

Target Area and the Falcon Bombing 

Range, respectively. This action would 

also enhance Fort Sill’s ability to host 

joint training. 

The Proposal 

At the request of the U.S. Army, the 

FAA is proposing an amendment to 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR) part 73 to establish R–5601F 

adjacent to and north of R–5601B and 

R–5601C. Establishment of the new 

restricted area would provide additional 

airspace needed to support new high 

angle air-to-ground training 

requirements for Air Force, Navy, and 

Marine aircraft operating over the 

Falcon Bombing Range and would 

enhance Fort Sill’s ability to host joint 

training. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. 

Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) 

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not 

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; 

February 26, 1979); and (3) does not 

warrant preparation of a regulatory 

evaluation as the anticipated impact is 

so minimal. Since this is a routine 

matter that will only affect air traffic 

procedures and air navigation, it is 

certified that this proposed rule, when 

promulgated, will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Environmental Review 

This proposal will be subjected to an 

environmental analysis in accordance 

with FAA Order 1050.1E, 

‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and 

Procedures,’’ prior to any FAA final 

regulatory action. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73 

Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted 

areas. 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as 

follows: 

PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 

1. The authority citation for part 73 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 73.56 [Amended] 

2. Section 73.56 is amended as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

R–5601F Fort Sill, OK (New) 

Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 34°46′24′′ N., 

long. 98°52′00′′ W.; thence clockwise via 

the 49 NM arc of SPS VORTAC to lat. 

34°47′00′′ N., long. 98°51′00′′ W.; to lat. 

34°43′46′′ N., long. 98°49′55′′ W.; thence 

clockwise via the 46 NM arc of SPS 

VORTAC to lat. 34°45′03′′ N., long. 

98°29′46′′ W.; to lat. 34°46′15′′ N., long. 

98°25′01′′ W.; to lat. 34°47′00′′ N., long. 

98°17′46′′ W.; to lat. 34°46′45′′ N., long. 

98°17′01′′ W.; to lat. 34°46′06′′ N., long. 

98°17′01′′ W.; to lat. 34°46′06′′ N., long. 

98°21′01′′ W.; to lat. 34°43′45′′ N., long. 

98°21′01′′ W.; to lat. 34°43′30′′ N., long. 

98°21′21′′ W.; to lat. 34°43′30′′ N., long. 

98°35′40′′ W.; to lat. 34°45′00′′ N., long. 

98°40′31′′ W.; to lat. 34°42′15′′ N., long. 

98°50′01′′ W.; to the point of beginning. 

Excluding that airspace: (1) Below 5500 

feet MSL beginning at lat. 34°44′28′′ N., 

long. 98°46′16′′ W.; thence clockwise via 

the 46 NM arc of SPS VORTAC to lat. 

34°45′09′′ N., long. 98°30′57′′ W.; to lat. 

34°43′30′′ N., long. 98°30′00′′ W.; to lat. 

34°43′30′′ N., long. 98°35′40′′ W.; to lat. 

34°45′00′′ N., long. 98°40′31′′ W.; to lat. 

34°43′09′′ N., long. 98°46′56′′ W.; to the 

point of beginning; and, (2) below 3500 feet 

MSL within a 1 NM radius of lat. 34°46′46′′ 

N., long. 98°17′46′′ W. 

Designated altitudes. 500 feet AGL to FL 400. 

Times of Designation. Sunrise to 2200 local 

time, Monday–Friday; other times by 

NOTAM. 

Controlling Agency. FAA, Fort Worth 

ARTCC. 

Using Agency. Commanding General, United 

States Army Field Artillery Center 

(USAFACFS), Fort Sill, OK. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, October 27, 

2005. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules. 

[FR Doc. 05–21878 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

RIN 3084–AB03 

Rule Concerning Disclosures 

Regarding Energy Consumption and 

Water Use of Certain Home Appliances 

and Other Products Required Under 

the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (‘‘Appliance Labeling Rule’’) 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC or Commission). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comment. 

SUMMARY: Section 137 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 requires the 

Commission to conduct a rulemaking to 

examine the effectiveness of current 

energy efficiency labeling requirements 

for consumer products issued pursuant 

to the Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act. In response to that directive, the 

Commission is seeking comments on the 

effectiveness of the Appliance Labeling 

Rule and suggestions for improvements 

to the energy labeling program. The 

Commission is also requesting 

comments about the overall costs and 

benefits of the Rule and its overall 

regulatory and economic impact as a 

part of the Commission’s systematic 

review of all its regulations and guides. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 13, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Energy 

Labeling, Project No. R511994’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

A comment filed in paper form should 

include this reference both in the text 

and on the envelope, and should be 

mailed to the following address: Federal 

Trade Commission/Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–135 (Annex O), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. Comments containing 

confidential material must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

Commission Rule 4.9(c).1

66308 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

applicable law and the public interest. See 16 CFR 

4.9(c). 

2 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. 

3 42 U.S.C. 6294. For most appliance products, 

the Commission must prescribe labeling rules 

unless it determines that labeling is not 

technologically or economically feasible (42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(1)). For central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, furnaces, and clothes washers, the statute 

requires labeling unless the Commission finds that 

labeling is not technologically or economically 

feasible or is not likely to assist consumers in 

making purchasing decisions (42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(2)(A)). Pursuant to § 6294(a)(1), the 

Commission determined not to require labeling for 

television sets, kitchen ranges, ovens, clothes 

dryers, humidifiers, dehumidifiers, and certain 

home heating equipment other than furnaces. See 

44 FR 66466, 66468–66469 (Nov. 19, 1979). 

4Section 323 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6293) directs 

DOE to develop test procedures for major 

household appliances. Manufacturers must follow 

these test procedures to determine their products’

compliance with DOE’s energy conservation 

standards (required by § 325 of EPCA), and to 

derive the energy consumption or efficiency values 

to put on required labels. 

5More information about the Rule can be found 

at http://www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

6 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979). 

7See 52 FR 46888 (Dec. 10, 1987) (central air 

conditioners); 59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994) (pool 

heaters); 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989) (fluorescent 

lamp ballasts); 58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993) (certain 

plumbing products); and 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 

1994) (lighting products). 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by clicking on the 

following Web link: https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcenergylabeling and following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. To 

ensure that the Commission considers 

an electronic comment, you must file it 

on the Web-based form at the https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftcenergylabeling Web link. You may also 

visit http://www.regulations.gov to read 

this advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking, and may file an electronic 

comment through that Web site. The 

Commission will consider all comments 

that regulations.gov forwards to it. 

The FTC Act and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. All timely and responsive 

public comments received by the 

Commission, whether filed in paper or 

in electronic form, will be considered by 

the Commission, and will be available 

to the public on the FTC Web site, to the 

extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. 

As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes 

every effort to remove home contact 

information for individuals from public 

comments it receives before placing 

those comments on the FTC Web site. 

More information, including routine 

uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may 

be found in the FTC’s privacy policy, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 

326–2889, Division of Enforcement, 

Federal Trade Commission, 601 New 

Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Energy Policy Act of 2005 

Section 137 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 amends the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) 2 to 

require the Commission to initiate a 

rulemaking to consider ‘‘the 

effectiveness of the consumer products 

labeling program in assisting consumers 

in making purchasing decisions and 

improving energy efficiency.’’ As part of 

this effort, the Act directs the 

Commission to consider ‘‘changes to the 

labeling rules (including categorical 

labeling) that would improve the 

effectiveness of consumer product 

labels.’’ The Act gives the Commission 

90 days to initiate the rulemaking and 

two years to complete it. To implement 

this directive, the Commission is 

seeking comments on the effectiveness 

of the FTC’s energy labeling regulations 

for consumer products, generally 

referred to as the Appliance Labeling 

Rule (16 CFR part 305). 

II. Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

Labeling Requirements 

Section 324 of EPCA requires the FTC 

to prescribe labeling rules for the 

disclosure of estimated annual energy 

cost or alternative energy consumption 

information for a variety of products 

covered by the statute, including home 

appliances (e.g., refrigerators, 

dishwashers, air conditioners, and 

furnaces), lighting, and plumbing 

products.3 EPCA requires that labels for 

covered appliances disclose the 

estimated annual operating cost of such 

products, as determined by the 

Department of Energy (DOE) test 

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)).4 The 

Commission, however, may require a 

different measure of energy 

consumption if DOE determines that the 

cost disclosure is not technologically 

feasible, or the Commission determines 

such a disclosure is not likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions or is not economically 

feasible. Section 324(c) also requires 

that the label contain information about 

the range of estimated annual operating 

costs (or energy consumption) for 

covered products. The Commission may 

also require the disclosure of energy 

information found on the label in any 

printed material displayed or 

distributed at the point of sale. In 

addition, the Commission may direct 

manufacturers to provide additional 

energy-related disclosures on the label 

(or information shipped with the 

product) including instructions for the 

maintenance, use, or repair of the 

covered product. 

III. FTC’s Appliance Labeling Rule 

The Commission’s Appliance 

Labeling Rule implements the 

requirements of EPCA by directing 

manufacturers to disclose energy 

information about major household 

appliances. This information enables 

consumers to compare the energy use or 

efficiency of competing models.5 When 

initially published in 1979,6 the Rule 

applied to eight appliance categories: 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, 

clothes washers, room air conditioners, 

and furnaces. Since then, the 

Commission has expanded the Rule’s 

coverage to include central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, plumbing products, 

lighting products, and pool heaters and 

some other types of water heaters.7

Under the Rule, manufacturers must 

disclose specific energy consumption or 

efficiency information about their 

products at the point of sale in the form 

of an ‘‘EnergyGuide’’ label affixed to 

each unit. The information on the 

EnergyGuide label also must appear in 

catalogs and on internet sites from 

which covered products can be ordered. 

The Rule directs manufacturers to 

derive the information from 

standardized tests issued by DOE. 

Required labels for appliances must 

also include a ‘‘range of comparability’’

(published by the Commission) that 

shows the highest and lowest energy 

consumption or efficiencies for all 

similar appliance models. These ranges 

of comparability are intended to help 

consumers determine how a specific 

model compares to others available in 

the market. Labels for most appliances 

must provide the product’s estimated 

annual operating cost. Manufacturers 

must calculate these costs using 

national average cost figures for energy 

(e.g., electricity, natural gas, etc.) 

published by DOE. In addition to the 

required EnergyGuide labels, 

manufacturers of furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps must 

provide cost information for their 

products in either fact sheets or an 

industry directory. 

The Rule contains very specific 

requirements for the content and format 

of the EnergyGuide labels. 

Manufacturers cannot place any 

information on the label other than that 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66309 

8See http://www.energystar.gov. 

9The Commission concluded that the use of 

operating cost as the primary descriptor was not 

likely to assist consumers. It found, among other 

things, that changes in national average energy costs 

necessitated frequent changes to ranges of 

comparability which, in turn, could yield 

inconsistent cost information in showrooms. See 53 

FR 22106, 22110 (Jun. 13, 1988) and 58 FR 12818, 

12827 (Mar. 5, 1993). 

10Thorne, Jennifer and Egan, Christine, ‘‘An 

Evaluation of the Federal Trade Commission’s 

EnergyGuide Label: Final Report and 

Recommendations,’’ ACEEE, August 2002 

[hereinafter ‘‘ACEEE 2002 Report’’]. The Report was 

funded in part by DOE, EPA, and other 

organizations. It is available online at http:// 

aceee.org/pubs/a021full.pdf. The Commission has 

not determined what, if any, reliance it will place 

on the ACEEE’s report (or any other labeling study) 

during this proceeding. 

11 Id. at v–vi. 

12See Wiel, Stephen, and McMahon, James E., 

‘‘Energy-Efficiency Labels and Standards: A 

Guidebook for Appliances, Equipment, and 

Lighting, 2nd Edition,’’ Collaborative Labeling and 

Appliance Standards Program (CLASP), 2005. 

13The ACEEE report contains a sample label with 

such a bar graph (pp. vi and 27–28) in addition to 

many other sample labels featuring various bar 

graph and categorical designs. See http://aceee.org/ 

pubs/a021full.pdf. 

specifically allowed by the Rule. In 

2000, the Commission issued an 

exemption allowing manufacturers to 

include the ‘‘Energy Star’’ logo on the 

EnergyGuide label for covered 

appliances (65 FR 17554 (Apr. 30, 

2000)). Energy Star is a voluntary 

labeling program that identifies high 

efficiency products. The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and DOE 

administer the Energy Star program.8

The Commission’s Rule contains 

certain reporting requirements which 

direct manufacturers for most covered 

products to file reports with the FTC 

annually and when they begin 

manufacturing new models. These 

reports must contain the estimated 

annual energy consumption or energy 

efficiency ratings for the appliances 

derived from tests performed pursuant 

to the DOE test procedures (16 CFR 

305.8(b)). Pursuant to section 305.10, 

the Commission publishes new ranges 

of comparability if an analysis of the 

new information indicates that the 

upper or lower limits of the ranges have 

changed by more than 15%. Otherwise, 

the Commission publishes a statement 

each year that the prior ranges remain 

in effect for the next year. 

The Rule has different labeling 

requirements for consumer products 

other than appliances (see 16 CFR 

305.11(d), (e), & (f)). For example, 

manufacturers of fluorescent lamp 

ballasts and certain tube-type 

fluorescent bulbs must disclose an 

encircled ‘‘E’’ on ballasts and on 

luminaires containing ballasts, as well 

as on packaging. The ‘‘E’’ signifies 

compliance with DOE minimum 

efficiency standards. Manufacturers of 

showerheads, faucets, toilets, and 

urinals must disclose water usage 

information on the products, packaging 

and labeling. Manufacturers of certain 

incandescent bulbs, spot and flood 

bulbs, and screw-base compact 

fluorescent bulbs must disclose, on 

packaging, the light output in lumens, 

energy used in watts, voltage, average 

life, and number of bulbs. They also 

must explain how purchasers can select 

the most energy efficient bulb for their 

needs. 

IV. Issues and Questions for Comment 

As directed by the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, the Commission is publishing 

this notice to seek comment on the 

effectiveness of the current appliance 

labeling requirements. The Commission 

has outlined below some specific issues 

and questions related to the current 

labeling program. These issues include 

the overall effectiveness of existing 

labeling requirements, the need for a 

new label design, and the benefits and 

costs of alternative label formats. The 

Commission is also seeking comments 

on other issues such as the energy 

descriptors used on current labels and 

energy disclosures for products not 

generally sold in showrooms. The 

Commission invites interested persons 

to submit written comments on any 

issue of fact, law or policy that may bear 

upon the FTC’s current labeling 

requirements. All comments should be 

filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES

section above, and must be received on 

or before January 13, 2006. After 

examining the comments received, the 

Commission will determine whether to 

propose for comment any specific 

amendments to the current 

requirements. 

A. Effectiveness of Labeling Program 

The original EnergyGuide label 

created by the Commission in 1979 

contained three energy-related 

disclosures for most covered products: 

(1) The estimated annual operating cost 

of the model, (2) the range of operating 

costs for similar models displayed in the 

form of a bar graph, and (3) a grid which 

provided the operating cost of the model 

at different energy costs. In 1994, the 

Commission revised the label so that 

energy use or efficiency (as opposed to 

operating cost) appears as the primary 

descriptor on the label.9 The revised 

labels continued to display cost 

information (for most products), but the 

cost figures were moved to the bottom 

half of the label. As part of the 1994 

review of the Rule, the Commission 

conducted consumer research and made 

certain format changes to the 

EnergyGuide label as a result. These 

changes enhanced the appearance of the 

range and bar graph on the label in an 

effort to reduce consumer confusion (see 

Figure 1). The Commission has not 

conducted any consumer research about 

the effectiveness of the label or 

alternative formats since adopting those 

changes in 1994, and the same 

EnergyGuide label has been in use since 

that time. 

In August 2002, the American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Environment 

(ACEEE) released a report that 

summarized research it had conducted 

on the EnergyGuide label’s efficacy.10

The research included manufacturer 

and consumer interviews, consumer 

focus groups, a mall intercept survey, 

and a simulated shopping experiment. 

According to ACEEE’s report, the 

interviews and focus groups suggested 

that consumers are familiar with the 

EnergyGuide but their use of the label 

appears to be low. According to these 

interviews and focus groups, consumers 

found the label to be overly ‘‘wordy, 

cluttered, and complex.’’ ACEEE 

concluded that the EnergyGuide ‘‘can be 

redesigned to improve consumer 

comprehension, encourage wider use of 

the label, and motivate consumers to 

consider energy use when purchasing a 

labeled appliance.’’ 11

ACEEE’s 2002 report also examined 

several different formats and graphical 

elements for the EnergyGuide label. The 

ACEEE report considered various 

categorical labels (i.e., those using a step 

ranking system such as stars or letters to 

indicate relative energy use) and 

continuous labels (i.e., those containing 

a bar graph or similar item which 

displays information on a continuous 

scale without discrete ranks or 

categories). Among other things, the 

report recommended the adoption of a 

‘‘categorical’’ label based on a star 

system (e.g., one to five stars). Various 

types of categorical labels are used in 

Europe, Australia, Brazil, Thailand, and 

other countries (see sample European 

Label at Figure 2).12 According to 

ACEEE, the research suggested that 

categorical labels ‘‘are easy to use and 

quick to decipher.’’ Of the continuous 

label designs considered, ACEEE found 

that the bar graph with visible marks 

denoting the graph’s scale ‘‘appears 

most promising.’’ 13 ACEEE’s report 

found that most consumers preferred 

categorical labels over bar graphs and 

other ‘‘continuous’’ label designs. 

To facilitate the Commission’s efforts 

to consider the effectiveness of the 

66310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

14Where appropriate, the Commission requests 

enough detail about data, study design, statistical 

analysis, and findings to enable the FTC to 

understand the methodology that was used to 

conduct the analysis. 

15See, e.g., 44 FR at 66470 (Nov. 19, 1979) (‘‘The 

majority of furnace purchases are made either in the 

consumer’s home or as part of the consumer’s 

purchase of a home. As a result, few consumers 

have an opportunity to see a display model before 

the furnace is installed.’’). 

existing labeling program, we request 

that commenters consider the following 

questions: 14

1. Do any recent reports, studies, or 

research provide data with which to 

estimate the benefits and costs of 

current consumer appliance energy 

labeling programs in the United States? 

In particular, have any such studies 

examined the effectiveness of the 

EnergyGuide label and alternative 

formats and approaches? Are there any 

recent studies from other countries that 

would be helpful for the Commission to 

consider? 

2. How should the Commission 

measure the ‘‘effectiveness’’ of the 

appliance labeling program ‘‘in assisting 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions’’? For example, should 

effectiveness be measured by consumer 

comprehension of specific label 

elements, consumer preference for 

different labels, the impact of labels on 

product choice, or other means? 

3. How effective is the EnergyGuide 

label in providing consumers with 

useful, accurate information about the 

energy consumption or energy 

efficiency of covered products? What is 

the net benefit of the current 

EnergyGuide labels? Can appliance 

energy labels be modified to increase 

the net benefits of consumer energy 

labeling programs in the United States? 

4. What is the effectiveness of the 

current EnergyGuide label in improving 

energy efficiency? 

5. What has been the impact of the 

Energy Star program on the 

effectiveness of the EnergyGuide label 

and its usefulness for consumers? 

6. Would changes to the current label 

design and format significantly improve 

or have a significant impact upon the 

effectiveness of the labels? How is the 

effectiveness of the EnergyGuide label 

affected by factors unrelated to label 

design (e.g., consumer priorities)? 

7. What changes, if any, should be 

made to the current appearance of the 

EnergyGuide label (content, size, format, 

color, graphical presentation, etc.)? 

8. Should the FTC change the 

EnergyGuide label to require a 

categorical design such as a star based 

label? Would a categorical design yield 

benefits for consumers? What would be 

the costs of implementing a categorical 

label system? How would the benefits of 

such a system compare to the costs? 

9. Do commenters have views about 

the design, methodology, conclusions, 

or other aspects of the ACEEE 2002 

report? 

10. Would a categorical label design 

significantly improve energy efficiency? 

Would consumers interpret a categorical 

label as an indicia of product quality 

instead of energy performance or 

efficiency? 

11. What criteria would the FTC need 

to use to assign a star rating to various 

models in specific product categories 

(i.e., criteria for a product to receive five 

stars, one star, etc.)? Would the stars be 

based on the DOE minimum efficiency 

standards, the range of energy 

consumption for models in a particular 

class, or some other measure? How 

would a star-based categorical label 

depict the required ranges? For 

example, would the lowest rating (i.e., 

one star) apply to the least efficient 

products in a product class category 

regardless of the number of products in 

the class and the efficiency of those 

products relative to DOE standards? 

12. Would a categorical label require 

the FTC to make judgments about the 

relative energy efficiency of products in 

the market? If so, what information 

would the Commission need to make 

such judgments? How would it obtain 

the necessary information? What would 

be the costs of making such 

determinations? 

13. Would a star based EnergyGuide 

label be duplicative of the Energy Star 

program? Would the star based label 

cause consumer confusion given the 

existence of the Energy Star program? 

14. Section 305.19 of the Rule 

contains an exemption which allows 

manufacturers to place the Energy Star 

logo on the EnergyGuide label for 

qualified products. Under the 

exemption, the Energy Star logo must be 

placed ‘‘above the comparability bar in 

the box that contains the applicable 

range of comparability.’’

Should the Commission consider 

changes to that exemption (e.g., changes 

to the placement of the logo on the 

label)? 

15. In addition to considering the 

categorical label as required by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005, should the 

Commission consider other formats or 

graphical representations for the 

EnergyGuide label? Are there 

improvements that can be made to the 

current bar graph design in the 

EnergyGuide label? 

B. Energy Descriptors For Various 

Products 

Currently, EnergyGuide labels for 

most products provide information on 

the energy use (or efficiency) of the 

model, the range of energy use (or 

efficiency) in the market, and an 

estimated annual operating cost. The 

product labels display different energy 

information depending on the product. 

For example, refrigerator labels contain 

energy use information in the form of 

kilowatt-hours per year while room air 

conditioners display energy efficiency 

information through an Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER). In addition, 

labels for central air conditioning units, 

heat pumps, furnaces, and pool heaters 

do not contain cost information. 

To aid the Commission in considering 

possible Rule changes for this issue, we 

request that commenters consider the 

following questions: 

1. Are the current energy descriptors 

understandable to consumers? What 

changes, if any, should be made to the 

energy descriptors used on the 

EnergyGuide label? 

2. Should the FTC consider requiring 

estimated annual operating costs as the 

primary descriptor on EnergyGuide 

labels in lieu of energy consumption or 

energy efficiency information? What are 

the costs and benefits of requiring 

operating costs as the primary 

descriptor? 

3. Should the Commission consider 

different energy descriptors for existing 

products? For instance, should the 

clothes washer label disclose the 

model’s efficiency rating using the 

measure currently required by DOE (the 

‘‘Modified Energy Factor’’) instead of 

the product’s annual energy 

consumption? 

C. Disclosures for Central Air 

Conditioning, Heat Pumps, and 

Furnaces 

The Commission is also interested in 

current labeling requirements for 

products that generally do not appear in 

showrooms where consumers can 

compare labels on competing models. 

Such products include central air 

conditioning units, heat pumps, and 

furnaces.15 The Commission seeks 

comment on whether there are 

alternatives to labeling that would more 

effectively communicate energy 

efficiency information to consumers for 

such products. Although the Rule 

requires manufacturers to disclose 

energy information for these products 

through means other than labels, such 

as fact sheets and directories (see 16 

CFR 305.11(b)), it is unclear whether 

such methods provide helpful 

information for consumers. Fact sheets 

contain detailed information that may 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66311 

not be easy to understand such as cost 

charts, regional heating and cooling 

maps, and equations related to the 

energy performance. In addition, most 

industry members provide cost 

information in industry directories 

instead of preparing fact sheets. It is 

unclear whether consumers normally 

consult these industry directories in 

making their purchasing decisions. To 

aid the Commission in evaluating these 

existing requirements, the Commission 

seeks information on the following 

questions: 

1. How do consumers generally 

receive information about the energy 

efficiency of central air conditioners, 

heat pumps, and furnaces? 

2. Are EnergyGuide labels on central 

air conditioners, heat pumps, and 

furnaces assisting consumers in their 

purchasing decisions? If not, should the 

Commission consider an alternative 

method of ensuring that consumers have 

access to useful efficiency information 

for these products? 

3. Should the Commission consider 

changes to the current fact sheet 

requirements for central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces? 

4. Are there any alternative or 

additional forms of information (such as 

brochures, catalogs, or information 

sheets) that the FTC could require at the 

point of sale that would help consumers 

in making their purchasing decisions for 

these products? 

D. Reporting Requirements 

Section 326(b) of EPCA requires 

manufacturers to notify the Commission 

of new models they produce and also 

directs them to file an annual report 

with energy consumption information 

about their products. The annual report 

information is available on the FTC Web 

site at http://www.ftc.gov/ 

appliancedata. To aid the Commission 

in considering possible changes to the 

Rule’s reporting requirements, we 

request that commenters consider the 

following questions: 

1. What changes, if any, should be 

made to the specific information 

covered by existing reporting 

requirements in the Rule? Would such 

changes improve the effectiveness of the 

labeling program for consumers? 

2. Is there additional product 

information that the FTC should 

require, consistent with its statutory 

authority, in reports from 

manufacturers? What are the costs and 

benefits of requiring such additional 

information? Are there reporting 

requirements that the FTC should 

eliminate from the Rule (consistent with 

current statutory requirements)? 

E. Annual Revisions to the Ranges of 

Comparability 

As discussed above, the EnergyGuide 

label must contain a range of 

comparability that shows the highest 

and lowest energy consumption or 

efficiencies for all similar appliance 

models. EPCA does not specify when 

the Commission must change the 

ranges, but states it cannot do so ‘‘more 

often than annually.’’ 42 U.S.C. 426(c). 

The Commission’s regulations indicate 

that the FTC will revise ranges annually, 

if appropriate (16 CFR 305.10). For some 

products, such as dishwashers, the 

Commission has changed the applicable 

ranges several times over the last few 

years. When the Commission changes 

the ranges, manufacturers must amend 

their labels to reflect the new ranges and 

update the operating costs on the labels 

using a new national average cost of 

electricity. Frequent range changes can 

cause the labels on different models in 

the same showroom to display 

inconsistent range and cost information 

because the models on display may 

have been manufactured at different 

times. This may be confusing to 

consumers. Frequent range revisions 

also impose a burden on manufacturers 

because they must change their product 

labels. To aid the Commission in 

considering possible Rule changes for 

this issue, we request that commenters 

consider the following questions: 

1. Are changes in the energy use of 

products in the market significant 

enough to warrant an examination of the 

ranges of comparability every year? 

2. Should the Commission consider 

amending the Rule so that the FTC 

examines the comparability ranges less 

often than annually? If so, how often 

should the Commission examine the 

ranges? Would such a change affect the 

effectiveness of the labeling program? 

3. Are there ways to alleviate 

potential consumer confusion caused 

when certain product labels display 

new range and cost information and 

other models in the same showroom 

have labels displaying old range and 

cost information? 

F. Lighting and Plumbing Products 

What changes, if any, should be made 

to existing labeling requirements for 

lighting and plumbing products in 16 

CFR part 305? What are the costs and 

benefits of any proposed labeling 

changes for lighting and plumbing 

products? 

V. Regulatory Review 

The Commission conducts scheduled 

reviews of its rules and guides in an 

effort to seek information about their 

costs and benefits and regulatory and 

economic impact. The regulatory review 

of the Appliance Labeling Rule had 

been scheduled for 2008. The 

Commission is combining that 

scheduled regulatory review with the 

present rulemaking required by the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005. Accordingly, 

in addition to the specific questions 

listed above, the Commission is also 

soliciting general comments on, among 

other things, the economic impact of 

and the continuing need for the Rule; 

possible conflicts between the Rule and 

State, local, or other Federal laws; and 

the effect on the Rule of any 

technological, economic or other 

industry changes. 

The Commission is interested in 

receiving data, surveys and other 

empirical evidence to support 

comments submitted in response to this 

notice. As part of the regulatory review, 

the Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving comments and 

supporting data in response to the 

following questions: 

(A) What benefits, if any, has the Rule 

provided to consumers of products 

covered by the Rule? 

(B) What changes, if any, should be 

made to the Rule to increase the benefits 

of the Rule to consumers? How would 

these changes affect the costs the Rule 

imposes on industry members? 

(C) What significant burdens or costs, 

if any, including costs of compliance, 

has the Rule imposed on industry 

members subject to its requirements? 

Has the Rule provided benefits to such 

industry members? 

(D) What changes, if any, should be 

made to the Rule to reduce the burdens 

or costs imposed on industry members 

subject to its requirements? How would 

these changes affect the benefits 

provided by the Rule? 

(E) Does the Rule overlap or conflict 

with other Federal, State, or local laws 

or regulations? 

(F) Since the Rule was issued, what 

effects, if any, have changes in relevant 

technology or economic conditions had 

on the Rule? 

(G) What significant burdens or costs, 

if any, including costs of compliance, 

has the Rule imposed on small 

businesses subject to its requirements? 

How do these burdens or costs differ 

from those imposed on larger businesses 

subject to the Rule’s requirements? 

(H) What changes, if any, should be 

made to the Rule to reduce the burdens 

or costs imposed on small businesses? 

How would these changes affect the 

benefits of the Rule? Would such 

changes adversely affect the competitive 

position of larger businesses? 

66312 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

(I) Are there any other costs or 

benefits associated with the Rule? 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 

Advertising, Consumer protection, 

Energy conservation, Household 

appliances, Labeling, Lamp products, 

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


EP02NO05.061</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 66313 


EP02NO05.062</GPH>
66314 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 2, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 05–21817 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Defense Contract Audit Agency 

32 CFR Part 317 

Privacy Act; Implementation 

AGENCY: Defense Contract Audit 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Defense Contract Audit 

Agency (DCAA) is proposing to update 

the DCAA Privacy Act Program Rules, 

32 CFR, Part 317, by deleting references 

to a cancelled publication and by 

adding guidance concerning the blanket 

exemption for classified material. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 3, 2006 to be 

considered by this agency. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Senior 

Advisor, Defense Contract Audit 

Agency, Information and Privacy, CM, 

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Suite 2135, 

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060–6201. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Debbie Teer at (703) 767–1002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review’’

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

are not significant rules. The rules do 

not (1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy; a sector of the economy; 

productivity; competition; jobs; the 

environment; public health or safety; or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another Agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs, or 

the rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive order. 

Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory 

Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6) 

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

because they are concerned only with 

the administration of Privacy Act 

systems of records within the 

Department of Defense. 

Public Law 96–511, ‘‘Paperwork 

Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) 

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

impose no information requirements 

beyond the Department of Defense and 

that the information collected within 

the Department of Defense is necessary 

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, 

known as the Privacy Act of 1974. 

Section 202, Public Law 104–4, 

‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rulemaking for the Department of 

Defense does not involve a Federal 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

and that such rulemaking will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

It has been determined that Privacy 

Act rules for the Department of Defense 

do not have federalism implications. 

The rules do not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the National Government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 317 

Privacy. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 317 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 317—DCAA PRIVACY ACT 

PROGRAM 

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR 

part 317 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 

U.S.C. 552a) 

§ 317.4 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 317.4 as follows: 

a. Remove paragraph (c)(5). 

b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(6), 

(c)(7), and (c)(8) as (c)(5), (c)(6), and 

(c)(7). 

3. Amend part 317 by adding § 317.7 

as follows: 

§ 317.7 Exemptions. 

All systems of records maintained by 

DCAA will be exempt from the 

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) and 

(e)(4)(H) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1) 

to the extent that the system contains 

any information properly classified 

under Executive Order 12958, that is 

required by the Executive Order to be 

kept secret in the interest of national 

defense or foreign policy. This 

exemption, which may be applicable to 

parts of all systems of records, is 

necessary since certain record systems, 

not otherwise specifically designated for 

exemptions herein, may contain isolated 

items of information which have been 

properly classified. 

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 05–21783 Filed 11–1–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 111 

Bundling Flat-Size and Irregular Parcel 

Mail—Bundle Integrity 

AGENCY: Postal Service. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service proposes 

that mailers use two bands to secure all 

bundles of presorted rate flat-size mail 

and irregular parcels that are not 

shrinkwrapped. This proposal would 

remove the option to secure bundles up 

to 1 inch thick with only one band. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before December 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or deliver comments to 

the Manager, Mailing Standards, U.S. 

Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Rm. 3436, Washington, DC 20260–3436. 

You may inspect and photocopy all 

written comments between 9 a.m. and 4 

p.m., Monday through Friday, at USPS 

Headquarters Library, 11th Floor North, 

475 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, 

DC 20260. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Chatfield at 202–268–7278. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are 

proposing a revision to Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) 

that would require mailers to use at 

least two bands—one around the length 

and one around the girth—when only 

banding is used to secure bundles of 

flat-size and irregular parcel mailpieces. 

‘‘Bundle integrity’’—the ability of 

bundles to remain intact—is crucial for 

our new, high-speed Automated 

Package Processing System (APPS). 

Bundles with only one band tend to curl 

up and allow mailpieces to escape the 

bundle. When these or other bundles 

break open, we lose the value of mailers’

presort, and we have to handle 

individual pieces manually. Manual