6836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

1Any request for confidential treatment, 

including the factual and legal basis for the request, 

must accompany the comment 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 applicable law and the public 

interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 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)). The statute requires labels for central 

air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, and clothes 

washers 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 previously 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

[RIN 3084–AB03] 

Appliance Labeling Rule 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: Section 137 of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–58) 

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. The Commission 

is seeking comments on proposed 

amendments to the existing labeling 

requirements. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before April 16, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Appliance 

Labeling Rule Amendments, 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 or delivered, with two 

complete copies, to the following 

address: Federal Trade Commission/ 

Office of the Secretary, Room H–135 

(Annex A), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20580. Comments 

containing confidential material must be 

filed in paper form, and the first page of 

the document must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential’’ and must comply with 

Commission Rule 4.9(c).1 The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

postal mail in the Washington area and 

at the Commission is subject to delay 

due to heightened security precautions. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by following the 

instructions on the web-based form at 

http://secure.commentworks.com/

energyguide. To ensure that the 

Commission considers an electronic 

comment, you must file it on that webbased form. You also may visit http:// 

www.regulations.gov to read this 

proposed Rule, and may file an 

electronic comment through that Web 

site. The Commission will consider all 

comments that regulations.gov forwards 

to it. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should be 

submitted to: Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Federal Trade 

Commission. Comments should be 

submitted via facsimile to (202) 395– 

6974 because U.S. postal mail at the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) is subject to lengthy delays 

due to heightened security precautions. 

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, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received 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 the 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/ 

ftc/privacy.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, (202) 326–2889, 

Attorney, Division of Enforcement, 

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal 

Trade Commission, Room NJ–2122, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

Labeling Requirements 

III. FTC’s Appliance Labeling Rule 

IV. Procedural History 

V. FTC Consumer Research 

VI. Section-by-Section Description of 

Proposed Amendments 

VII. Discussion of Comments and Proposed 

Amendments 

A. Effectiveness and Benefits of the Current 

Label 

B. Alternative Label Designs 

C. Requirements for Heating and Cooling 

Equipment 

D. Refrigerator Categories 

E. Revisions to Ranges of Comparability 

and Energy Price Information 

F. Energy Descriptors 

G. Placement of the EnergyGuide Label on 

Covered Products 

H. Catalog Requirements 

I. Fuel Cycle Energy Consumption 

J. Clothes Washer Labels 

K. Plumbing Issues 

L. Television Labeling 

M. Miscellaneous Amendments and Issues 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

X. Additional Questions for Comment 

XI. Proposed Rule Language 

I. Introduction 

Section 137 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (‘‘EPACT 2005’’) (Pub. L 109– 

58) 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 provides the 

Commission 90 days to initiate, and two 

years to complete, this rulemaking. 

Following the Act’s passage in August 

2005, the Commission published an 

Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR), held a workshop, 

and conducted consumer research for 

this proceeding. The Commission is 

now publishing proposed amendments 

to the Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR 

Part 305) for public comment. The 

amendments would implement a new 

design for EnergyGuide labels, replace 

labeling requirements for heating and 

cooling equipment with marking 

requirements, and make several other 

changes to update and improve the 

Rule. 

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), and lighting products, and for 

the disclosure of water use information 

for certain plumbing products.3 Labels 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6837 

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 42 U.S.C. 6295) and to 

derive the energy consumption or efficiency values 

to disclose 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). 

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

9Comments on the ANPR are available online at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabeling/ 

index.htm. 

10The Commission announced the Workshop in 

an April 10, 2006 Federal Register notice (71 FR 

Continued 

for appliances covered under EPCA 

must 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 the cost 

disclosure is not likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions or is not economically 

feasible. Section 324(c) also requires 

that the label for appliances contain 

information about the range of estimated 

annual operating costs (or energy 

consumption) for covered products. The 

Commission may 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. Subsequently, the 

Commission expanded the Rule’s 

coverage to include central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, plumbing products, 

lighting products, and pool heaters as 

well as some other types of water 

heaters.7

Under the Rule, manufacturers must 

disclose specific energy consumption or 

efficiency information about their 

appliances at the point of sale in the 

form of a yellow EnergyGuide label 

affixed to each unit. The information on 

the EnergyGuide label also must appear 

in catalogs from which covered 

products can be ordered. The Rule 

directs manufacturers to derive the 

information from standard DOE tests. 

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 

also must provide the product’s 

estimated annual operating cost. 

Manufacturers calculate these costs 

using national average energy cost 

figures published by DOE. In addition to 

the required EnergyGuide labels, 

manufacturers of furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps must 

provide energy 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 must use the FTC yellow 

label with the EnergyGuide headline 

and must provide information in the 

format and type prescribed. 

Additionally, manufacturers cannot 

place any information on the label other 

than that 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. 3, 2000)). 

ENERGY STAR, which is administered 

by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and DOE, is a voluntary U.S. 

Government labeling program to 

identify and promote energy-efficient 

products.8

The Commission’s Rule also contains 

certain reporting requirements which 

direct manufacturers for most covered 

products to file reports with the FTC 

both 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 conducted pursuant 

to the DOE procedures (16 CFR 

305.8(b)). Under 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. Energy information submitted 

pursuant to these requirements is 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

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

Finally, the Rule has different labeling 

requirements for non-appliance 

consumer products (16 CFR 

305.11(d),(e), and (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 their products, 

packaging, and labeling. Manufacturers 

of certain incandescent bulbs, spot and 

flood bulbs, and screw-base compact 

fluorescent bulbs must disclose on their 

packaging 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. Procedural History 

The Commission initiated this 

proceeding on November 2, 2005 with 

the publication of an ANPR that sought 

comments on the effectiveness of the 

FTC’s energy labeling regulations for 

consumer products. (70 FR 66307 (Nov. 

2, 2005)). The ANPR also announced the 

Commission would conduct its periodic 

regulatory review as part of this 

rulemaking. The Commission received 

28 comments in response to the ANPR.9

Based on these comments, the 

Commission conducted a Public 

Workshop (‘‘Workshop’’) on May 3, 

2006 to discuss a variety of issues 

associated with the labeling program, 

including: (1) Overall label design 

issues, (2) refrigerator comparability 

ranges, (3) labels for heating and cooling 

equipment, and (4) television labeling. 

After conducting the Workshop, the 

Commission received ten additional 

written comments.10


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6838 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

18023). Written comments related to the Workshop 

are available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

comments/energylabeling-workshop/index.htm. A 

copy of the Workshop transcript is available online 

at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelingworkshop/060503wrkshoptrnscript.pdf. 

11Comments submitted in response to the June 

notice are available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/ 

os/comments/appliancelabelingresearch/index.htm. 

12Thorne, Jennifer and Egan, Christine, ‘‘An 

Evaluation of the Federal Trade Commission’s 

EnergyGuide Label: Final Report and 

Recommendations,’’ ACEEE, August 2002. The 

report is available online at http://aceee.org/pubs/ 

a021full.pdf. 

13AHAM submitted its research results as part of 

its comments on the ANPR. See AHAM (#519870–

00016) (available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

comments/energylabeling/519870–00016.htm). 

14The thresholds used to assign stars under the 

categorical system used in the study were published 

for comment at 71 FR 36088, 36091 (June 23, 2006). 

15The overall comparability range on the labels 

for this condition was, therefore, much greater than 

the other conditions, although the energy efficiency 

and cost range among the four products remained 

constant. 

On March 15, 2006, the Commission 

announced its plans to conduct 

consumer research on various label 

designs to examine the effectiveness of 

the current energy labeling requirements 

and to obtain information about 

alternatives (71 FR 13398). After the 

Workshop, the Commission published 

an additional notice containing details 

about its planned consumer research 

project, including drafts of the 

appliance labels that would be used in 

the project. (71 FR 36088). The 

Commission received eight comments in 

response to that June 23, 2006 notice.11

Based on all the comments, the 

Workshop, and consumer research 

conducted by the FTC staff (see below), 

we now propose various amendments to 

the Appliance Labeling Rule. We invite 

comments on these proposed changes. 

V. FTC Consumer Research 

The FTC staff conducted its consumer 

research in October 2006. The detailed 

results of the study and associated 

documents can be found at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. The study 

results are also discussed in sections 

VII.A., VII.B., and VII.D. of this Notice. 

The FTC staff designed the research to 

provide information regarding consumer 

comprehension of various label designs 

and the perceived usefulness of various 

types of information related to energy 

use, energy efficiency, and operating 

costs. In drafting the changes proposed 

in this Notice, the FTC considered its 

consumer research results, the facts 

submitted in comments, and the broad 

range of policy and legal issues raised 

by commenters during the rulemaking 

proceeding. 

In designing the consumer research, 

the FTC staff began with the findings 

and strategies of prior research and the 

comments received during the 

rulemaking proceeding. In 2002, the 

American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Environment (‘‘ACEEE’’) 

examined the efficacy of the 

EnergyGuide label as well as alternative 

formats and graphical elements.12 In 

addition, in response to the 

Commission’s 2005 ANPR, the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) conducted 

research that also examined the current 

label and alternatives.13 Similar to 

ACEEE’s project, the FTC’s research 

included questions designed to 

understand how well consumers 

comprehend information presented in 

different labeling formats. Like the 

research conducted by AHAM, the 

FTC’s study involved an Internet panel. 

Although the FTC considered this prior 

work in developing its own research, 

the study addressed several issues not 

raised in the previous studies and tested 

a label design not addressed in detail by 

ACEEE or AHAM. 

The FTC contracted with Harris 

Interactive, a consumer research firm 

that has substantial experience assessing 

consumer communications using the 

Internet and other alternative protocols. 

The study’s sample universe was made 

up of members of the contractor’s 

Internet panel. The panel consists of 

more than four million individuals 

recruited through a variety of 

convenience sampling procedures, 

rather than true probability sampling 

techniques. The sample for this research 

is therefore not nationally representative 

in the classic sense. However, the 

contractor has studied the relationship 

between samples from its Internet panel 

and samples collected using more 

traditional probability sampling 

techniques. Based on these studies, the 

contractor has developed procedures, 

including demographic weighting based 

on proprietary propensity scoring 

techniques, to minimize differences 

between the results of their Internet 

panel studies, and studies based on true 

probability samples of the nation. 

Although an Internet panel may not be 

not suitable for some types of research, 

the FTC staff expects the population of 

Internet users and the members of the 

Harris panel fairly well represent the 

population of major appliance 

purchasers. 

The study yielded a sample of 

approximately 4,000 individuals who 

were at least 18 years old and likely or 

recent major appliance purchasers. In 

conducting this research, the contractor 

identified respondents using relevant, 

pre-existing data in its Internet panel 

database and necessary additional 

screening questions. FTC staff, in 

consultation with Harris, designed the 

screener questions to ensure that the 

demographic composition of the sample 

reasonably matched that of the target 

population. The study randomly 

assigned all respondents to one of ten 

label treatments. The online 

questionnaire then asked each 

respondent a set of questions. The study 

randomly assigned respondents to 

different label design groups. Each 

group viewed a single label design (and 

were not shown other designs). Under 

this approach, the responses yielded 

data about the relative effectiveness of 

each design in conveying energy 

information regardless of which design 

consumers would have preferred if 

shown multiple label designs. 

Each of the ten treatment groups (i.e., 

cells) contained approximately 400 

respondents. The four primary label 

designs consisted of the current 

EnergyGuide label (the control label), a 

revised version of the current design 

using a continuous bar graph to convey 

the comparability range, a categorical 

‘‘five-star’’ label based on the model’s 

energy performance compared to DOE 

minimum standards,14 and a label 

prominently featuring operating costs 

(see Figure 1). Respondents in four cells 

viewed labels bearing the ENERGY 

STAR logo while respondents in four 

other cells viewed the same label 

without the ENERGY STAR logo. The 

study also included a control no-label 

(pure information) condition. For this 

condition, respondents viewed 

information about appliances in a table 

and text format. This no-label condition 

and the cells involving categorical labels 

were the only study conditions to 

include the five-star rating system and 

the term ‘‘energy efficient.’’ The 

research study also included a 

refrigerator condition that combined all 

similar capacity, full-size refrigerators 

into one category (i.e., eliminated 

separate ranges of comparability for 

configurations such as side-by-side 

doors and bottom-mounted freezers).15


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6839 

16The FTC published for comment the detailed 

attributes of all eight models, including their 

operating costs, electricity uses, and star rankings 

in a June 23, 2006 Notice (71 FR 36088). All of the 

treatments contained information about operating 

costs and energy use for the appliance. However, 

the prominence of this information differed across 

treatments. 

17The data were generated in two ways: weighted 

and unweighted. The weighted data is based on the 

contractor’s proprietary techniques to minimize the 

differences between questionnaire results from its 

Internet Panel and the questionnaire results from 

more traditional procedures. The results cited in 

this Notice are based on the weighted data. The FTC 

staff has compared the results for the weighted data 

with the unweighted data. Although there are some 

differences between the two approaches, the core 

findings discussed in this Notice are the same using 

both techniques. 

18The null hypothesis for this test of statistical 

significance is that there is no difference between 

label conditions in the proportion of respondents 

correctly answering a question. A 10% level of 

significance was set, using appropriate two-tail 

tests. Various T-tests were applied by Harris using 

Quantum software. Under this condition, the 

hypothesis of no difference between two label 

conditions is rejected if a two-tailed test indicates 

significance at the 10% level. One interpretation of 

this procedure is that if there really is no difference 

between two label conditions (i.e., the null 

hypothesis is true), then the odds are only one in 

ten of observing the difference produced by the 

data. Another interpretation is that the confidence 

level of the test is 90%. See Gilbert A. Churchill, 

Jr., Marketing Research Methodological 

Foundations (Fifth Edition), The Dryden Press, 

Chicago, 1991. 

19The Rule would continue to require only the 

disclosure of total refrigerated volume for the 

EnergyGuide label. 

TABLE 1.—LABEL CONDITIONS APPLIANCE LABEL RESEARCH

Cell Condition (label design) 

Cell 1 ............ Current EnergyGuide Label. 

Cell 2 ............ Current EnergyGuide Label with ENERGY STAR logo. 

Cell 3 ............ Modified Version of Current Label. 

Cell 4 ............ Modified Version of Current Label with ENERGY STAR logo. 

Cell 5 ............ Categorical Label. 

Cell 6 ............ Categorical Label with ENERGY STAR logo. 

Cell 7 ............ Operating Cost Label. 

Cell 8 ............ Operating Cost Label with ENERGY STAR logo. 

Cell 9 ............ Pure Information (no recognizable label format, information formatted with equal font size). 

Cell 10 .......... Current EnergyGuide Label with Collapsed Refrigerator Categories for the refrigerator rotation and the Current Label for the 

dishwasher rotation. 

The study employed four different 

hypothetical refrigerator models and 

four different hypothetical dishwasher 

models.16 For example, one group of 

respondents viewed the current 

EnergyGuide label for four refrigerators 

and four dishwashers with different 

energy characteristics, whereas, a 

different group viewed a categorical 

version of the label for the same models. 

The order of the dishwasher sequence 

and the refrigerator sequence rotated, so 

that half of the respondents saw the 

dishwasher sequence first, while the 

other half saw the refrigerator sequence 

first. 

Respondents answered a series of 

objective questions about the 

characteristics of the products described 

in the labels. The questionnaire directed 

respondents to rank the refrigerators in 

terms of annual operating costs, annual 

energy use, and energy efficiency. In 

addition, the study contained questions 

about cost, efficiency, and energy use 

differences, as well as questions about 

any differences in product quality 

communicated by the labels. 

Respondents in all cells answered 

questions about which model or models 

in the set qualified for ENERGY STAR 

and the location of the ENERGY STAR 

logo on the label. The questionnaire also 

asked respondents about their prior 

experience using EnergyGuide labels to 

assess how useful the current labels 

have been. Respondents answered 

general questions about the perceived 

usefulness of certain types of energyrelated information to assess whether 

labels emphasizing that information 

(e.g., energy usage, categorical measures 

of efficiency, or operating costs) are 

likely to be particularly useful in real 

life settings. 

After the study’s completion, Harris 

Interactive provided the FTC staff with 

data summaries.17 Harris also provided 

information regarding the statistical 

significance of the final results under 

the different label treatments.18

Throughout this Notice, ‘‘statistically 

significant’’ differences among labels are 

those found to be significant at the 10% 

level (or lower) (i.e., the 90% 

confidence level or higher). 

VI. Section-by-Section Description of 

Proposed Amendments 

The following are brief descriptions of 

the proposed amendments set out in 

this Notice. Section 305.2: To make 

section 305.2 more user friendly, the 

Proposed Rule would place the 

definitions in alphabetical order. It 

would also amend the definition of 

catalog to clarify that the term covers 

both paper and Internet-based catalogs. 

Finally, the definition of ‘‘range of 

energy efficiency ratings’’ would be 

eliminated. 

Section 305.3 Description of covered 

products: The Proposed Rule would 

amend the description of refrigerators 

and refrigerator freezers to make it 

consistent with DOE regulations. 

Section 305.5 Determinations of 

estimated annual energy consumption, 

estimated annual operating cost, and 

energy efficiency rating, and of water 

use rate: The Proposed Rule would 

clarify that the Rule does not apply to 

covered appliances for which DOE has 

not issued test procedures. 

Section 305.7 Determinations of 

capacity: Under the Proposed Rule, 

capacities for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers would be 

determined for total refrigerated volume 

and adjusted total volume as 

determined by DOE regulations.19

Section 305.8 Submission of data: 

The Proposed Rule would clarify that 

required reports for appliances include 

the brand name of the reported model 

if it is different from the name of the 

manufacturer. 

Section 305.9 Representative 

average unit energy cost: Under the 

Proposed Rule, this section would be 

removed and reserved. 

Section 305.10 Ranges of 

comparability information on required 

labels: The Proposed Rule would amend 

this section to direct the Commission to 

amend range of comparability and 

representative average energy cost 

information every five years. 

Redesignation of sections 305.13, 

305.14, 305.15, 305.16, 305.17, 305.18 

and 305.19: The Proposed Rule would 

redesignate these sections as 305.19, 

305.20, 305.21, 305.22, 305.23, 305.24 

and 305.25, respectively. 

Requirements for lighting and 

plumbing products (newly designated 

sections 305.15 and 305.16): Under the 

Proposed Rule, the labeling and marking 

requirements for lighting and plumbing 

products currently in section 305.11 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6840 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

20CEE also expressed support for the data 

collection activities conducted by the FTC. In 

addition to comments about the EnergyGuide label, 

the Commission received a comment from the 

National Electronics Manufacturers Association 

(NEMA) in support of existing disclosure 

requirements for lighting products. NEMA 

(#519870–00028). 

would be moved to redesignated 

sections 305.15 and 305.16, 

respectively. The Proposed Rule 

contains no substantive change to 

existing requirements for these 

products. 

§ 305.11 Labeling for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, 

dishwashers, clothes washers, water 

heaters, room air conditioners, and pool 

heaters: The Proposed Rule would 

amend this section to require operating 

cost as the primary disclosure on the 

EnergyGuide label. The Proposed Rule 

would also require new language to 

clarify the scope of the comparison 

ranges for refrigerator products on the 

labels. The proposal would also modify 

and clarify requirements related to the 

label placement on covered products. 

Sections 305.12 and 305.13 (newly 

designated) Marking requirements for 

heating and cooling equipment: The 

Proposed Rule would require 

manufacturers to mark permanently 

heating and cooling equipment (except 

water heaters) with energy efficiency 

information. The proposal would 

eliminate EnergyGuide labeling 

requirements for these products. 

Section 305.14 (newly designated) 

Energy information disclosures for 

heating and cooling equipment: The 

Proposed Rule would streamline 

requirements related to the disclosure 

and distribution of consumer energy 

information for central air conditioners 

and furnaces. 

Section 305.20 (newly designated) 

Paper catalogs and Web sites: The 

Proposed Rule would require the 

disclosure of annual estimated operating 

costs for these products in paper and 

Internet-based catalogs. Under the 

proposal, catalog sellers would no 

longer be required to provide range of 

comparability information. 

Section 305.24 (newly designated) 

Exemptions: The exemption related to 

ENERGY STAR logos on EnergyGuide 

labels would be incorporated into 

section 305.11. Section 305.24 would be 

reserved. 

Appendices: The Proposed Rule 

would amend the various appendices to 

include range of comparability 

information in the form of operating 

costs. 

VII. Discussion of Comments and 

Proposed Amendments 

A. Effectiveness and Benefits of the 

Current Label 

Issue and Comments: In the ANPR, 

the Commission asked a series of 

questions related to the effectiveness of 

the current EnergyGuide label. Many 

comments indicated that the current 

label provides consumer benefits. The 

responses reflected a consensus that the 

current program is useful. The 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) 

(#519870–00018), for example, stated 

that ‘‘there is a strong belief among 

[CEE] members that the EnergyGuide 

label is an important tool to inform 

consumers of the efficiency of home 

appliances.’’20 Similarly, General 

Electric (#519870–00027) noted that the 

label has successfully provided 

‘‘comparative energy consumption 

information to consumers.’’ AHAM 

(#522148–0007) stated that the label 

provides ‘‘accurate, useful and 

comparative information.’’

ACEEE (#519870–00021), however, 

reported that the current label has a 

‘‘low level of use’’ and a ‘‘minimal 

impact on consumer, manufacturer, and 

contractor comparisons and choices.’’

ACEEE’s research found that most 

consumers were unable to identify the 

label or correctly select the label from a 

group of different label designs. While 

assessments of the current label’s 

effectiveness varied, most commenters 

agreed that there is much room for 

improvement in the label’s design. 

A few commenters urged the 

Commission to consider changes to the 

label in light of the policy goals of the 

EnergyGuide program. The nature of 

those goals, however, was a point of 

disagreement among commenters. For 

example, Whirlpool (#519870–00013) 

suggested that the current label be 

updated to improve its readability and 

effectiveness. A researcher (Payne 

#519870–00024) who worked on 

ACEEE’s study wrote that the ‘‘current 

Energy Guide label is reasonably 

effective in providing consumers with 

information about the annual operating 

cost associated with a particular 

product, but is less effective in 

conveying the energy efficiency.’’ He 

explained that the label appears to 

encourage customers to choose higher 

efficiency products after comparing the 

annual operating costs between two 

options, but that the energy efficiency 

information is not effective at conveying 

this information. According to the 

comment, consumers generally consider 

a labeled product to be energy efficient, 

and the comparison graphic on the 

current label is poorly understood. 

Overall, however, he concluded that 

‘‘the net benefit of the current label is 

positive because consumers do glean 

cost information and can make choices 

based on that information.’’

The same commenter identified two 

specific problems with the current label. 

First, there is an inconsistency in the 

‘‘directionality’’ of the comparison 

graphic. For some products such as 

refrigerators, the comparison range 

provides information about electricity 

use. On these labels, more efficient 

products fall on the left (lower) part of 

the range. Conversely, for other 

products, such as room air conditioners, 

the comparison range provides 

information about energy efficiency. On 

these labels, the more efficient products 

fall on the right (higher) part of the 

scale. In the commenter’s view, this can 

cause consumers to misinterpret the 

label. Second, he asserted that the 

division of some products, such as 

refrigerators, into multiple categories 

causes problems because the ranges are 

different for similar products (e.g., top 

mount and side-by-side refrigeratorfreezers). (Payne #519870–00024). 

In responding to the Commission’s 

questions about the effectiveness of the 

current label, several commenters 

addressed what they perceived to be the 

purpose of the FTC’s energy labeling 

program. There was some disagreement 

about the policy goals underlying the 

EnergyGuide label. According to some 

industry members, the FTC’s labeling 

program should provide useful 

information about the energy usage of 

home appliance products. (See, e.g., 

AHAM #522148–00007). Some 

commenters questioned the role the 

label should play in promoting energy 

savings and in creating incentives for 

market transformation. Whirlpool 

(#522148–00005), for example, pointed 

to DOE’s efficiency standards program 

and the ENERGY STAR program as the 

appropriate entities for energy efficiency 

promotion. It urged the FTC to focus 

instead on providing ‘‘meaningful, 

helpful information to consumers to 

assist them in the purchase decision’’

through ‘‘clear, fair, and unbiased’’

disclosures. 

Other commenters believed that the 

effectiveness of the label also should be 

judged by its ability to encourage 

consumers to purchase high-efficiency 

products and its effectiveness in 

encouraging manufacturers to bring 

more high efficiency products to the 

marketplace. (See, e.g., ACEEE 

#519870–00021 and Payne #519870–

00024). One such commenter explained 

that the Commission should consider 

whether the label ‘‘convinces and 

encourages consumers to purchase 

higher energy-efficient products’’ and 

encourages ‘‘manufacturers to produce 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6841 

21Question Q435 reads: ‘‘Do you recall seeing a 

label describing energy characteristics attached to 

the appliance?’

22Question Q440 asked qualified respondents: 

‘‘To the best of your knowledge, was the color of 

the energy label: (1) White with green letters, (2) 

Blue with white letters, (3) Yellow with black 

letters, (4) Red with black letters, or (5) Not sure?’

23Question Q445 asked qualified respondents: 

‘‘Using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘‘not at all 

useful’’ and 10 is ‘‘extremely useful,’’ how useful 

was the energy label in your most recent [insert 

relevant appliance] purchase decision?’

24 It is possible that some respondents actually 

recalled seeing ENERGY STAR information instead 

of the EnergyGuide label. We note, however, that 

only 8% of respondents recalled that the label they 

saw in the showroom was blue and white (colors 

often used for the ENERGY STAR logo). Moreover, 

the ENERGY STAR logo does not display energy 

characteristics. 

25As part of the Workshop, the FTC sought 

comment on an alternative label design that 

compared a model’s energy efficiency to DOE 

minimum standards in the form of a percentage. See 

71 FR 18023. Several workshop participants raised 

concerns that percentage information may be 

confusing to consumers, inadequately distinguish 

the energy efficiency of some products (such as 

water heaters), and create complications as DOE 

minimum standards change over time. Taking these 

comments into account, the June 2006 notice 

indicated that the FTC would not continue to 

consider such a design (71 FR at 36093). 

26Thorne and Egan, supra note 12. 

27AHAM, supra note 13. 

more energy efficient products.’’ (Payne 

#519870–00024). As ACEEE (#519870–

00021) observed, amendments to EPCA 

set forth in the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 direct the FTC to initiate a 

rulemaking to consider the effectiveness 

of the appliance labeling program ‘‘in 

assisting consumers in making 

purchasing decisions and improving 

energy efficiency.’’

Discussion: In promulgating the 

Appliance Labeling Rule in 1979 (44 FR 

66466 (Nov. 19, 1979)), the Commission 

provided the following statement: ‘‘The 

primary purpose of the Commission’s 

Rule is to encourage consumers to 

comparison-shop for energy-efficient 

household appliances. By mandating a 

uniform disclosure scheme for energy 

consumption information, the Rule will 

permit consumers to compare the 

energy efficiency of competing 

appliances and to weigh this attribute 

against other product features in making 

their purchasing decisions. If the 

labeling program works as expected, the 

availability of this new information 

should enhance consumer demand for 

appliances that save energy. In turn, 

competition should be generated among 

manufacturers to meet this demand by 

producing more energy-efficient 

appliances.’’ The Commission continues 

to believe that this statement accurately 

describes the role of the FTC’s energy 

labeling program. Specifically, the label 

serves two important purposes. First, 

the detailed operating cost and energy 

consumption information on the label 

allow consumers to compare the total 

cost of competing models. Second, the 

label aids consumers who are seeking to 

buy high-efficiency products that reduce 

energy use and thus help the 

environment. 

In the Commission’s consumer 

research, several questions addressed 

the effectiveness of the label. These data 

suggest that consumers actually find the 

label much more useful than has been 

suggested by past research. Overall, the 

results indicate that the label exhibits a 

high level of recognition and usefulness 

as reported by the study’s participants. 

Over 85% of recent appliance 

purchasers who visited a retail 

showroom recalled seeing a label with 

energy characteristics.21 Of those 

respondents, 58% correctly recalled that 

the label was yellow with black 

letters.22 Fifty-nine percent of 

respondents who recalled seeing a label 

scored the usefulness of the label 23 at a 

seven or higher on a scale of zero to 

ten.24

B. Alternative Label Designs 

Issue: The ANPR sought comments on 

whether the Commission should change 

the current design and format of the 

EnergyGuide label. During this 

proceeding, the Commission has 

considered several different label 

designs. In particular, we have sought 

comments on whether label information 

should be presented in the form of a 

‘‘continuous’’ bar graph or a 

‘‘categorical’’ design. Labels using a 

continuous design, such as the current 

EnergyGuide label, contain a bar graph, 

or similar item, that displays 

information on a continuous scale 

without discrete ranks or categories. 

Labels under a categorical approach 

employ discrete categories, using a step 

ranking system such as stars or letters to 

indicate relative energy use. The 

Commission has also considered 

whether to adopt a continuous-style 

label that displays operating costs as the 

primary energy efficiency descriptor.25

A key feature of the current 

continuous-style label is that the range 

or scale is based on data for models 

available on the market. One end of the 

scale depicts the energy use of the most 

efficient model on the market while the 

other identifies the least efficient. For 

example, the bar graph on a label for a 

typical refrigerator category may have 

539 kWh/yr (kilowatt-hours per year) on 

one end and 698 kWh/yr on the other. 

The ratings on a categorical label (e.g., 

stars or letters) generally depict the 

model’s energy efficiency as compared 

to minimum government efficiency 

standards. For example, a five star 

dishwasher would have an efficiency 

rating that exceeded the minimum 

government standard by a certain 

percentage (e.g., 20%). In some 

countries, the energy label categories 

stem from a consistently applied 

algorithm (e.g., New Zealand and 

Australia). (Roke #522148–00002). The 

framework behind the categorical label 

is fundamentally different from that 

used for the continuous-style label 

because the categorical range does not 

depict directly the energy use or 

efficiency of other products on the 

market. Instead, the categories (e.g., 

stars) correspond to thresholds defined 

by the agency administering the labeling 

program. 

Comments: In 2002, ACEEE released a 

report summarizing its research on the 

EnergyGuide label’s efficacy and on 

alternative formats and graphical 

elements for the label.26 More recently, 

AHAM conducted research that also 

examined the current label and 

alternatives.27 The conclusions reached 

by AHAM and ACEEE are not in accord. 

The ACEEE report considered various 

categorical and continuous labels. 

Among other things, the report 

recommended the adoption of a 

categorical label based on a star system 

(e.g., one to five stars). According to 

ACEEE (#519870–00021), its research 

demonstrated a clear preference for the 

categorical star-based label that 

consumers found the ‘‘easiest to 

understand and most motivating.’’ On 

the other hand, AHAM (#519870–

00016) indicated that its study found 

that consumers prefer and understand 

the continuous label design over the 

categorical. 

Comments on the Categorical Design 

Many comments focused on the 

continuous and categorical designs. 

Commenters were clearly split on their 

preference for one design over the other. 

In general, advocates of the categorical 

label argued that the design is easier for 

consumers to understand and would be 

more effective at promoting energy 

efficiency. (See, e.g., Payne #519870–

00024 and ACEEE #519870–00021). 

ACEEE’s research indicated that a 

categorical label based on a star system 

‘‘is more easily understood than the 

current label, thereby enabling shoppers 

to more quickly and easily compare the 

energy performance of multiple 

models.’’ ACEEE found in its research 

that consumers clearly preferred a 

categorical label, particularly one that 

employs a star-based rating system. 

ACEEE (#519870–00021) concluded that 

the star-based label was the easiest for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6842 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

28See Whirlpool #522148–00005, Edison Electric 

Institute (EEI) #522148–00010, Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA) #519870–

00011, AHAM #519870–00016, and AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) 

#519870–00010. ACEEE’s comments stated that its 

research found that a star label did not imply 

quality or other requirements beyond energy 

consumption. (ACEEE #519870–00021). 

29See, Whirlpool #522148–00005, AHAM 

#519870–00016, EPA #519870–00007, and GAMA 

#519870–00011. 

30See AHAM (#519870–00016 and #522148–

00007), Payne (#519870–00024), Whirlpool 

#522148–00005, EEI #522148–00010, EPA 

#519870–00012, and GAMA #519870–00011. Fisher 

and Paykel (#522148–0002) provided information 

about the rating algorithm used in Austra lia and 

New Zealand for refrigerators. 

consumers to understand and ‘‘most 

motivating.’’ The categorical label also 

is useful for a wide range of consumers, 

including those with limited literacy, 

difficulty reading English, and 

discomfort with numerical concepts. 

Comments also suggested that the 

categorical label provides a greater 

incentive for manufacturers to produce 

high-efficiency products because of 

market benefits associated with having 

the highest energy rating. (Payne 

#519870–00024). Several commenters 

also noted that many other countries, 

including those in the European Union, 

employ a categorical labeling system. 

(Payne #519870–00024 and ACEEE 

#519870–00021). According to NRDC 

(#519870–00025), these labels have 

‘‘been extremely effective 

communication tools and have 

successfully moved consumers to 

purchase more energy efficient and cost 

effective models.’’

Other comments raised a variety of 

concerns about the categorical 

approach. These concerns fell into five 

basic categories. First, some commenters 

warned that consumers would interpret 

the label’s categories (e.g., a five-star 

system) as indicia of non-energy related 

factors such as product quality or 

performance.28 In fact, according to 

some comments, categorical labels in 

some other countries are intended to 

convey performance attributes of the 

product beyond the limited energy 

disclosures intended by the 

EnergyGuide label. (Alliance Laundry 

Systems #519870–00008 and Whirlpool 

#522148–00005). 

Second, several commenters 

cautioned that the categorical label 

would cause confusion related to the 

ENERGY STAR program.29 For example, 

CEE (#519870–00018) raised concerns 

‘‘about the potential friction between a 

categorical label (that implicitly directs 

consumers toward more stars) and the 

ENERGY STAR label (that directs 

consumers to look for the mark on 

efficient products).’’ EPA (#519870–

00007), which runs the ENERGY STAR 

program along with DOE, wrote that a 

categorical label ‘‘could undermine the 

natural synergies between the 

EnergyGuide education effort and the 

ENERGY STAR program and prevent 

these programs from working effectively 

together to provide important yet 

different information to consumers.’’

Third, several commenters suggested 

that the categorical label would mislead 

consumers by inflating or understating 

the difference between appliances by 

using arbitrary cut-offs. (See, e.g., 

Whirlpool #519870–00013). ARI 

suggested that the label ‘‘would likely 

discourage incremental efficiency 

improvements unless the improvement 

is sufficient to qualify the product for 

the next star.’’ (ARI #519870–00010). 

Fourth, some commenters believed 

the categorical system would require the 

FTC to make subjective judgments about 

thresholds for the various categories. 

(Whirlpool #522148–00005 and AHAM 

#522148–00007). According to 

Whirlpool (#522148–00005), such 

decisions are ‘‘clearly beyond the scope 

of the current program and current 

expertise of the Commission.’’ AHAM 

(#522148–00007) indicated that, for 

some products such as dishwashers, the 

FTC would have to establish separate 

category ratings for models ‘‘that are 

essentially the same in energy 

efficiency.’’ It warned that the 

categorical label ‘‘overemphasizes very 

small differences in energy use simply 

for the sake of differentiation.’’ AHAM 

(#519870–00016) also warned that a 

categorical approach would change ‘‘the 

very nature of the label to one that 

would identify categories or groupings 

of products rather than’’ providing range 

information that allows consumers to 

make their own judgments among 

different products. 

Fifth, many commenters noted that 

the implementation of a categorical 

system will require extensive technical 

analysis and protracted negotiations 

with stakeholders.30 ACEEE (#519870–

00021) acknowledged that the effort 

would ‘‘entail significant up front 

implementation efforts’’ and suggested 

that the FTC convene a technical review 

group to advise the Commission on the 

appropriate category thresholds. 

AHAM (#522148–00007) and other 

industry members urged the FTC to 

retain the current continuous style 

format. AHAM indicated that its own 

research demonstrates that consumers 

prefer the continuous style label 

because it provides ‘‘useful information 

that could be used to compare different 

models’’ and because the graphic format 

is clear, simple, and understandable. 

Possible Improvements to the Current 

Label 

Though there were sharp 

disagreements about whether to use a 

categorical label, most commenters 

believed that if the Commission were to 

retain a continuous format, 

improvements could be made to the 

current design. For example, EEI 

(#522148–00010) recommended that the 

Commission use a revised version of the 

continuous label that increases the font 

sizes of key information. GAMA 

(#519870–00011), which voiced a strong 

preference for maintaining a continuous 

label design, supported the 

consideration of changes to reduce 

clutter on the current label. ACEEE 

(#519870–00021), which supports a 

categorical style, indicated that 

improvements could be made to the 

existing label. It suggested that the label 

should ‘‘clearly group and block off 

each informational element using the 

same text style and color; slightly 

reduce the level of explanatory text; and 

reposition the ENERGY STAR to the 

bottom right-hand corner of the label.’’

Comments on Operating Cost Label 

A few comments urged the 

Commission to consider a continuous 

label design that prominently displays 

operating (i.e., energy) cost. Whirlpool 

(#522148–00005) submitted a sample 

label featuring operating costs in large 

font. It suggested that such a label 

would be advantageous because it 

presented familiar information in a 

straightforward fashion. Similarly, 

Bosch explained that ‘‘it is of critical 

importance that the main attention 

grabber be the dollar value of the 

operating expense.’’ Bosch (#522148–

00003) stated that operating cost ‘‘is 

what people most want to know, and is 

the best value to use when comparison 

shopping.’’ At the Workshop, AHAM 

suggested that consumers really would 

like to know how much the appliance 

will ‘‘cost them to operate.’’ (Workshop 

Tr. at 124–125). While ACEEE’s research 

(#519870–00021) indicated that 

operating cost is considered one of the 

most important pieces of information on 

the label, it also found that consumers 

are interested in energy use. ACEEE’s 

comments, however, also stated that 

‘‘[c]onsumers expressed little interest in 

replacing annual energy use with 

operating cost as the basis for the 

comparative graphic.’’

Comments on Previous Research 

Commenters also discussed prior 

research. Natural Resources Canada 

(NRCAN) (#519870–00020) provided an 

overview of that agency’s past efforts to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6843 

31The Canadian EnergGuide label is similar to the 

U.S. EnergyGuide label. 32Quoting section 131 of EPACT 2005. 

33EPA (#519870–00021), and NRCAN (#19870–

00020). 

consider improvements to the Canadian 

EnerGuide label.31 In general, NRCAN’s 

work suggested that ‘‘the majority of 

people find the information on the 

EnerGuide labels useful to some extent 

in helping select the most energy 

efficient model appliance.’’ Its research, 

though, suggests consumers generally 

find labels with both kWh/yr and 

operational cost more useful than labels 

with kWh/yr alone. NRCAN considered 

the use of operating costs on its label, 

but concluded that ‘‘the disparity of 

electricity costs across Canada could not 

provide comparable information in the 

same manner as the kWh/yr.’’ In 

addition to considering operating costs, 

NRCAN explored the implementation of 

a categorical system, but found a starbased categorical label ‘‘did not test well 

with many consumers.’’ According to 

NRCAN, consumers raised concerns 

about the significance of differences 

among the categories. 

In addition to NRCAN’s comments 

about its own research, several 

comments addressed the strengths and 

weaknesses of the ACEEE and AHAM 

research. Whirlpool (#519870–00013) 

raised concerns about ACEEE’s mall 

intercept approach and also questioned 

the statistical significance of the results 

of a shopping experiment ACEEE 

conducted. AHAM (#519870–00016) 

raised concerns that the ACEEE study 

was ‘‘non-scientific’’ and results driven 

aimed at concluding that the 

‘‘categorical-style label was the 

preference of consumers.’’ ACEEE 

(#522148–00008) countered AHAM’s 

critiques in detail, explaining, among 

other things, that throughout ‘‘the 

project, the research design was 

reviewed with numerous experts and 

found to be a strong and valid approach 

without bias towards any particular 

outcome.’’ Furthermore, ACEEE voiced 

criticisms of AHAM’s approach arguing 

that, contrary to AHAM’s assertions, the 

study actually found ‘‘that the starsbased label best expresses energy 

efficiency and does not mislead 

consumers with regard to product 

quality, performance, and reliability.’’

ACEEE also expressed concern that the 

AHAM study failed to test actual label 

comprehension, focusing instead on 

consumer preferences and self-reported 

ease of understanding. 

Comments on ENERGY STAR and 

Alternative Label Designs 

In 1992, the EPA introduced the 

voluntary ENERGY STAR program to 

promote energy-efficient products and 

thereby reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. ENERGY STAR first covered 

labeling for computers and monitors. In 

1996, EPA partnered with the U.S. 

Department of Energy. The ENERGY 

STAR label is now on major appliances, 

office equipment, lighting, home 

electronics, and more. Recognizing the 

importance of this program for 

consumers, the Commission in 2000 

issued an exemption to the Appliance 

Labeling Rule that allows manufacturers 

to include the ENERGY STAR logo on 

the EnergyGuide label for covered 

appliances. (65 FR 17554 (Apr. 3, 2000); 

see also 16 CFR 305.19(a)). The 

exemption requires manufacturers to 

print an explanatory tag line next to the 

logo that states ‘‘ENERGY STAR A 

symbol of energy efficiency.’’ As part of 

EPACT 2005, Congress established a 

formal, statutory basis for the ENERGY 

STAR program. (See 42 U.S.C. 6294a). 

Commenters raised several issues 

about the inclusion of ENERGY STAR 

information on the FTC’s EnergyGuide 

label. Some expressed concern about the 

impact a categorical labeling system 

may have on the ENERGY STAR 

program, while others took issue with 

the current placement of the ENERGY 

STAR logo on the FTC label. As 

discussed above, EPA (#519870–00012) 

raised several concerns about the impact 

of the categorical label on its program. 

CEE (#519870–00018), which works 

extensively with utility companies on 

energy-efficiency programs, cautioned 

the FTC to avoid a course that could 

damage ENERGY STAR and warned of 

the ‘‘potential friction’’ between a 

categorical label and ENERGY STAR. 

AHAM (#519870–00016) was more 

direct. According to that industry group, 

the adoption of a categorical label, with 

its identification of super-efficient 

categories, would create a ‘‘rival 

program to ENERGY STAR.’’ The two 

programs service distinct purposes in 

AHAM’s view. The FTC label assists 

consumers ‘‘in understanding the longterm cost implications of purchasing a 

particular product,’’ while the ENERGY 

STAR program ‘‘has been specifically 

identified by the Congress to ‘identify 

and promote energy-efficient products’

for consumers.’’32

On the other hand, ACEEE’s research 

found that consumers ‘‘easily 

distinguished the ENERGY STAR from 

the categorical rating scheme.’’ In 

addition, ACEEE concluded that the two 

programs have a mutually reinforcing 

relationship because consumers 

recognize ENERGY STAR as an 

endorsement that the model has met 

specific standards, while the categorical 

rating ‘‘provides a comparison scale for 

energy use among different models.’’

According to another commenter 

involved in ACEEE’s research, no 

‘‘consumer comprehension issues were 

found when consumers were shown a 

categorical stars system combined with 

an ENERGY STAR logo.’’ (Payne 

#519870–00024). This commenter, 

however, explained at the Workshop 

that ‘‘we probably need much more 

detailed research to understand the 

questions of how the Energy Guide label 

and the ENERGY STAR label interact.’’

(Workshop Tr. at 101 (Payne)). 

In addition to concerns about the 

impact of a categorical system on 

ENERGY STAR, commenters suggested 

improving the placement of the 

ENERGY STAR logo (or symbol) on the 

EnergyGuide label regardless of overall 

label design. Most commenters who 

addressed this issue suggested that the 

logo appear on the lower, right corner of 

the EnergyGuide label instead of above 

the comparability range, as currently 

required.33 NRCAN (#519870–00020)) 

explained that the bottom location 

‘‘showcases’’ the logo and that 

manufacturers believe the location 

provides more prominence to the 

symbol. EPA (#519870–00007) 

suggested that the explanatory text 

required for the logo be shortened 

because the words ‘‘ENERGY STAR’’

have now been incorporated into the 

logo. 

Discussion: The Commission has 

reviewed the concerns raised by the 

comments and the results of the FTC’s 

own research. Based on this review, as 

discussed further below, we propose 

replacing the existing label design with 

one that features estimated annual 

operating costs as the primary 

disclosure. The proposed label’s 

comparison range would disclose 

energy cost information in dollars per 

year. The label would continue to 

provide consumers with information 

about the product’s energy use (in kWh/ 

year), but as a secondary disclosure. The 

Commission is also seeking comment on 

a variation of the cost label design that 

would provide a cost estimate over a 

period of years instead of annually. 

The results of the FTC research 

yielded several general conclusions 

about the performance of the four label 

designs under consideration (i.e., the 

current energy use label, a modified 

version of the current energy use label, 

the categorical label, and the operating 

cost label). First, respondents performed 

well in the objective tasks of identifying 

and ranking operating costs (in dollars) 

and energy use (in kilowatt-hours) for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6844 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

34These simple operating cost questions are Q520 

‘‘Based on this information can you tell how much 

it typically costs to operate this model for one 

year?’’ and Q522 ‘‘How much would it typically 

cost to operate this model for one year?’’ These 

energy use questions are Q521 ‘‘Based on this 

information, can you tell how much energy is 

typically required to operate this model for one 

year?’’ and Q525 ‘‘How much energy is typically 

required to operate this model for one year?’’

35Respondents who viewed the modified current 

label without the ENERGY STAR (Cell 3) had 

significantly fewer correct responses to three out of 

four questions about energy use than the 

respondents who viewed the categorical label (Cell 

5) or the operating cost label (Cell 7). 

36The questionnaire included three ranking 

questions: Q615 (operating costs), Q660 (energy 

use), and Q640 (energy efficiency). For example, 

Q615 asked: ‘‘Please rank these refrigerators 

according to their typical yearly operating costs, 

starting with the most expensive to operate and 

then moving to the second most expensive to 

operate, and then the third most expensive to 

operate.’’ The structure of all three ranking 

questions was the same. The order of the ranking 

questions was rotated to prevent order bias. 

37For refrigerators and dishwashers, the FTC staff 

analysis examined differences among each of the 

four main labels without ENERGY STAR 

information (six comparisons for each product) and 

differences among the four main labels with 

ENERGY STAR information (six comparisons for 

each product). 

38Results for the energy use ranking task were 

similar. There were statistically significant 

differences in ten out of twenty-four comparisons. 

The clearest difference was between the categorical 

label and the current label, where the categorical 

label did better in four out of four comparisons. The 

categorical label did better than the operating cost 

label in only one out of four comparisons. 

39Respondents were asked Q629: ‘‘Based on this 

information, can you tell if any of the dishwashers 

qualify for the federal govenment’s ENERGY STAR 

program?’’

40The difference in the percentage of respondents 

who answered correctly for the categorical labels 

versus each of the other labels is statistically 

significant at the 5% significance level (i.e., 95% 

confidence level). 

all label designs, suggesting that any of 

the designs should help consumers 

compare operating costs and energy use. 

The categorical label, however, was 

somewhat more effective for some 

objective tasks, particularly when 

compared to the modified version of the 

current energy use label. Second, the 

categorical label, which was the only 

label to include the term ‘‘energy 

efficient,’’ was generally more effective 

at aiding respondents in ranking 

products by energy efficiency than the 

labels more prominently featuring 

operating costs or energy use. Third, 

respondents viewing the categorical 

design were much more likely than 

respondents viewing other designs to 

identify models as ENERGY STARqualified when none of the models 

viewed contained ENERGY STAR logos. 

Fourth, the results suggest that 

respondents viewing the categorical 

labels were somewhat more likely to 

misidentify quality differences between 

models than those respondents viewing 

other label designs. Fifth, the research 

indicated that the categorical label had 

a substantially greater impact on 

respondents’ reported willingness to 

pay for differences in energy 

performance between models. Finally, 

the study suggested that the respondents 

in all label conditions have a preference 

for the communication of energy 

characteristics in the form of operating 

costs over either electricity usage or a 

five-star categorical scale. 

Identification of Operating Costs, Energy 

Use, and Energy Efficiency Ranking 

In general, the research results for all 

label designs indicated that most 

respondents had little trouble 

identifying the correct operating cost 

and electricity use of a single model.34

In most cases, at least 80% of the 

respondents consistently answered such 

questions correctly regardless of label 

design. Although no single label design 

consistently out performed all others on 

questions asking respondents to identify 

operating cost and energy use, some 

patterns emerged. For questions 

involving operating costs, the FTC staff 

found that the modified continuous 

label (Cell 3) performed worse than the 

other labels (Cell 1, Cell 5, and Cell 7) 

in seven out of twelve head-to-head 

comparisons of response results 

involving labels without the ENERGY 

STAR logo. When the same cost 

questions were asked for labels bearing 

the ENERGY STAR logo, however, the 

results identified no statistically 

significant differences. In addition, 

there were no statistically significant 

differences between the operating cost 

labels and the categorical labels for this 

sequence of operating costs questions, 

whether or not the ENERGY STAR logo 

was included. 

Similar patterns emerged for the 

sequence of questions about energy use. 

Once again, the modified current label 

(Cell 3) performed worse than the 

operating cost design and the categorical 

design.35 In addition, there were no 

statistically significant differences in the 

percentage of correct responses between 

the categorical labels and the operating 

cost labels. 

The ranking task results suggested 

that a very high percentage of 

respondents could rank the models 

correctly by operating costs and 

electricity use.36 At least 69% of 

respondents viewing each label design 

could rank correctly the models by 

operating costs and at least 65% of 

respondents viewing each label design 

could rank correctly the models by 

energy use. The categorical labels 

tended to outperform other designs on 

the ranking tasks, particularly the 

current label and the modified current 

label. The study indicated that the 

categorical label outperformed the other 

designs in seven out of twenty-four 

response comparisons for questions 

related to operating costs.37 Most of 

these statistically significant differences 

(six of out the seven) involved 

comparisons of the categorical label to 

the current label or the modified current 

label. Only one of these seven 

differences involved a comparison of 

the categorical label result to the 

operating cost label and this occurred 

on the ranking task for refrigerators in 

the non-ENERGY STAR condition.38

For questions involving comparative 

energy efficiency, the categorical label 

performed better than the other label 

designs. For example, 82% of 

respondents viewing the categorical 

label (with the ENERGY STAR logo) 

correctly ranked refrigerators by energy 

efficiency whereas 72% did so for the 

current label, 69% for the modified 

version of the energy use label, and 71% 

for the operating cost label. 

The Categorical Label 

The results of the FTC research 

suggest that, while the categorical label 

can provide important benefits under 

the tested conditions, it presents some 

significant concerns. First, respondents 

were much more likely to exhibit 

confusion in identifying ENERGY STAR 

products when using the categorical 

label. Absent the ENERGY STAR logo, 

there was no way for respondents to 

identify correctly ENERGY STARqualified models without guesswork. 

Nevertheless, when shown categorical 

dishwasher labels without ENERGY 

STAR logos, 43% of the respondents 

indicated that they could tell whether 

any of the four labels were ENERGY 

STAR products.39 In groups viewing the 

other three label designs under the same 

conditions, a substantially smaller 

percentage of respondents indicated that 

they could determine whether products 

qualified for the ENERGY STAR 

program (14% for the current label (Cell 

1), 16% for the modified energy use 

label (Cell 3), and 11% for the operating 

cost label (Cell 7)).40

Additionally, when asked to identify 

ENERGY STAR-qualified models, a 

substantial number of respondents 

viewing the categorical design without 

the ENERGY STAR logo (Cell 5) 

identified the lower efficiency, nonENERGY STAR models in the study as 

ENERGY STAR models. Specifically, 

19% of the respondents in Cell 5 

identified the ‘‘three-star’’ dishwasher 

(Model J) as ENERGY STAR-qualified 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6845 

41The differences between the percentage of 

respondents viewing the categorical label who 

incorrectly identified ENERGY STAR models and 

the percentage of respondents viewing each of the 

other labels who incorrectly identified ENERGY 

STAR models is statistically significant at the 5% 

significance level (i.e., 95% confidence level). The 

results for refrigerators were similar: Cell 5 (13% for 

Model M and 16% for Model J) and Cell 7 (4% for 

Model M and 5% for Model J). 

42For other label designs, the respondents were 

less likely to identify Model K as ENERGY STAR 

where there was no ENERGY STAR logo on the 

label (9% for the current label, 13% for the 

modified label, and 9% for the cost label). The 

difference between the categorical label and each of 

the other labels is statistically significant at the 5% 

significance level (i.e., 95% confidence level). 

43Qualified respondents were asked Q725: 

‘‘Please use your mouse’s cursor to point and click 

on the screen on the information that tells you that 

this [refrigerator/dishwasher] qualifies for the 

federal government’s ENERGY STAR program.’’

This question was asked of respondents who said 

they could tell that an appliance qualified for the 

ENERGY STAR program, and who also identified at 

least one model as ENERGY STAR-qualified. 

44The specific results for the categorical label 

were: 81% Model L refrigerator, 77% Model K 

refrigerator, 83% Model L dishwasher, and 79% 

Model K dishwasher. The difference between the 

categorical label and each of the other labels is 

statistically significant at the 5% significance level 

in 12 out of 12 head-to-head comparisons. 

45The questions involving product quality 

included Q675, Q680, and Q685. First, respondents 

were told: ‘‘Now we would like to ask you some 

questions about the overall quality of the 

[refrigerators/dishwashers]. By ‘overall quality’ we 

mean to include factors such as performance, 

durability, and workmanship.’’ Then, respondents 

were asked: ‘‘Can you tell, from the information 

provided, if one [refrigerators/dishwasher] has a 

higher overall quality than the other [refrigerator/ 

dishwashers]?’’ Respondents who answered ‘‘Yes’’

to this question were then asked ‘‘Which 

[refrigerator/dishwasher] has the highest overall 

quality?’’

46When responses for the ENERGY STAR and 

non-ENERGY STAR versions of each label format 

are combined, the categorical labels result in 

significantly fewer correct responses than each of 

the other labels for dishwashers and refrigerators. 

47We note there was not a statistically significant 

difference between the percentage of respondents 

identifying quality differences in Cell 5 (categorical 

label without the ENERGY STAR logo) and Cell 7 

(operating cost without the ENERGY STAR logo) 

(Cell 5 Refrigerators—21%; Cell 5 Dishwashers—

21%; Cell 7 Refrigerators—19%; and Cell 7 

Dishwashers—16 %). 

48 In addition, those respondents viewing the 

categorical label who perceived quality differences 

were much more likely to identify the highest 

efficiency model (Model K) as the highest quality 

model than respondents in other cells whose 

responses identifying the highest quality model 

were more evenly distributed across the four 

models. 

49The willingness-to-pay series of questions 

began with Q700: ‘‘Now we would like to ask you 

some questions about how you would value the 

[refrigerators/dishwashers]. These two 

[refrigerators/dishwashers] are the same in all 

respects, except that one uses more energy than the 

other. They have the same performance, durability, 

features, capacity and workmanship, are made by 

the same manufacturer, and sold in the same store.’’

Then, respondents were asked Q705: ‘‘Would you 

be willing to pay more for one of these two 

models?’’ Respondents who answer ‘‘Yes’’ were 

then asked Q707: ‘‘Which model would you be 

willing to pay more for?’’ Those who select a model 

were then asked: ‘‘How much more would you be 

willing to pay for this [refrigerator/dishwasher]?’’

Finally, respondents were asked Q715: ‘‘Why do 

you say that? Please give as much detail as 

possible.’’

50The willingness-to-pay differences were similar 

for refrigerators (70% for categorical label (Cell 5), 

43% for the current label (Cell 1), 44% for the 

modified label (Cell 3), and 43% for the cost label 

(Cell 7)). The differences between the categorical 

label and each of these other labels are statistically 

significant at the 5% significance level for all of the 

relevant pair-wise comparisons. 

and 16% identified the ‘‘one-star’’

dishwasher (Model M) as being 

ENERGY STAR-qualified. By contrast, 

for those viewing the operating cost 

label (Cell 7), only 4% of respondents 

identified dishwasher Model J as 

ENERGY STAR-qualified and only 3% 

identified dishwasher Model M as 

qualified.41

A substantial percentage of 

respondents who viewed the categorical 

label (39% for dishwashers) indicated 

that five stars (Model K) equated to an 

ENERGY STAR product even though 

there was no ENERGY STAR logo on the 

label.42 While this assumption was 

correct in the context of the refrigerator 

or dishwasher labels used in the study, 

we are concerned that this tendency to 

guess could lead to inaccurate 

conclusions for some labeled products, 

such as water heaters, that are not 

covered under the ENERGY STAR 

program. Moreover, respondents’

guesswork in interpreting the 

categorical label suggests that such a 

label system could cause significant 

confusion where FTC categories fail to 

align neatly with ENERGY STAR levels. 

We note that EPA raised concerns about 

the feasibility of aligning categorical 

rankings to ENERGY STAR criteria for 

all covered products. (Workshop Tr. at 

97–98). 

The study results also indicated that 

the categorical label caused more 

confusion than other designs with 

regard to the identification of the actual 

ENERGY STAR logo on the label itself. 

The questionnaire asked certain 

respondents to identify the information 

on the label signaling that the appliance 

qualified for the ENERGY STAR 

program.43 In cells containing the 

ENERGY STAR logo, well over 90% of 

the qualified respondents viewing the 

current, modified current, and operating 

cost labels correctly identified the logo 

on the ENERGY STAR models (Models 

K and L) whereas only about 80%44 of 

the qualified respondents viewing the 

categorical label with the ENERGY 

STAR logo correctly identified that logo 

on the labels. These results further 

support the conclusion that the 

categorical label is more likely to create 

confusion regarding ENERGY STAR 

than the other label designs. 

The study also examined possible 

confusion about the effect of the label 

designs on perceptions of overall 

product quality.45 On average, across all 

ten label conditions, a little over 70% of 

the respondents correctly understood 

that the label information did not 

include data on overall product quality. 

Respondents who viewed the 

categorical labels were less likely to 

answer the overall product quality 

question correctly than respondents 

who viewed the operating cost label or 

the modified current label.46 This 

tendency for the categorical label to 

suggest quality was greatest when the 

label design was coupled with the 

ENERGY STAR logo.47 For example, the 

research indicated that 24% of the 

respondents viewing the refrigerator 

categorical style labels (Cell 6) indicated 

quality differences among the models. 

Respondents viewing other label 

designs under the same conditions 

indicated lower levels of confusion on 

this issue: 16% for the current label, 

15% for the modified energy use label, 

and 14% for the operating cost label.48

These differences, though not large, are 

statistically significant at the 5% 

significance level and add to the 

concerns with the categorical label. 

We also note that a significantly larger 

percentage of respondents who viewed 

the categorical label were willing to pay 

for energy performance differences 

compared to those respondents who 

viewed the other designs.49 Specifically, 

70% of respondents viewing a pair of 

dishwasher models with the categorical 

label (Cell 5) indicated a willingness to 

pay more for one model over another. 

Only about 45% of the respondents 

viewing the other three label designs 

under similar conditions (without the 

ENERGY STAR logo) indicated that they 

were willing to pay more for one model 

over the other.50 The differences in 

willingness-to-pay across label designs 

when the ENERGY STAR logo was 

included on the label were also 

substantial, but not as pronounced (e.g., 

for dishwashers, 75% for the categorical 

design, 54% for the current label, 58% 

for the modified label, and 54% for the 

operating cost label). 

These willingness-to-pay results 

suggest that the categorical label may be 

more effective at motivating consumers 

to purchase higher efficiency products 

than the other designs. However, it is 

difficult to predict the extent to which 

self-reported intentions to pay more 

would translate into actual behavior in 

the marketplace. The results also 

suggest that a categorical EnergyGuide 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6846 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

51EPACT 2005 indicates that the purpose of the 

ENERGY STAR program is ‘‘to identify and promote 

energy-efficient products and buildings.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6294a(a)). 52We note that the study did not test conditions 

where two labels had the same number of stars, but 

different energy use and operating cost figures. 

53We note commenters raised legitimate 

questions about the feasibility of implementing a 

categorical label system, including the alignment of 

FTC categories with ENERGY STAR criteria. Given 

our conclusions based on the research, we are not 

addressing such concerns in detail, but we 

recognize the serious issues that would be raised by 

the implementation of a categorical label. 

54When the Commission first issued pool heater 

label requirements in 1994, the DOE test procedure 

did not contain a final procedure for measuring 

annual operating costs for these products. (See 10 

CFR Part 430, Appendix P; and 59 FR 49556, 49558 

(Sept. 28, 1994)). Since then, DOE has amended the 

procedure to allow manufacturers to calculate 

annual energy use and operating cost for pool 

heaters. (62 FR 26140 (May 12, 1997)). Accordingly, 

the Commission proposes to require the disclosure 

of estimated annual operating costs on pool heaters. 

55As discussed in section VII.C of this Notice, we 

are proposing to eliminate EnergyGuide labeling 

requirements for heating and cooling equipment 

(except water heaters). Therefore, the operating cost 

label would not apply to those products. 

label may serve a promotional function 

similar to the existing ENERGY STAR 

program. As the research suggests, 

however, the categorical label may 

actually have negative effects on the 

ENERGY STAR program, potentially 

creating substantial confusion and, in a 

significant number of cases, leading 

consumers to identify low-efficiency 

products as ENERGY STAR-qualified. 

We believe the EnergyGuide label 

should complement, not detract from, 

the ENERGY STAR program. The 

combination of the FTC label and 

ENERGY STAR program appears to 

provide a sound framework for 

conveying energy information to 

consumers and promoting energy 

efficiency. The FTC label displays 

detailed energy information about all 

products regardless of energy efficiency. 

ENERGY STAR provides the U.S. 

Government’s imprimatur for highefficiency products.51 This system, as a 

whole, provides a robust source of 

energy efficiency information to 

consumers. 

In sum, we are not proposing a 

categorical label. The study suggests 

that there are benefits to the categorical 

label. It outperformed other labels on 

some objective performance tasks 52 and 

appears to provide a good tool for 

allowing consumers to rank competing 

models. With the exception of the 

energy efficiency ranking task, however, 

differences in performance between the 

categorical label and the operating cost 

label were fairly modest. Overall, the 

potential costs of the categorical label 

are likely to outweigh its potential 

benefits. We are concerned that the label 

design could confuse a significant 

number of consumers with regard to the 

well-established ENERGY STAR 

program and may tend to convey 

inaccurate product quality messages 

more often than other tested designs. 

These concerns outweigh the categorical 

design’s potential benefits.53 We request 

comment on the results of the FTC 

research with regard to the categorical 

label and the conclusions we have 

reached. 

Proposed Operating Cost Label 

After reviewing the results of the 

research and the comments submitted, 

the Commission is proposing to change 

the label design to require operating cost 

as the primary disclosure. Section 324 

(a) of EPCA directs the Commission to 

require annual operating costs on the 

label, unless the Commission 

determines that such disclosures are not 

likely to assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions. (42 U.S.C. 

6294(c)). The FTC’s consumer research 

clearly indicates that cost information is 

likely to assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions. While all the 

designs considered comply with Section 

324(a), and each has strengths and 

weaknesses, on balance, we believe the 

adoption of a design that presents cost 

as the primary disclosure best serves 

consumers in the current marketplace. 

Under the Proposed Rule, the operating 

cost design would be required for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, 

room air conditioners, pool heaters,54

and water heaters.55 A sample of the 

proposed label is included as Figure 1. 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6847 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3EP13FE07.000</GPH>
6848 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

56Respondents were first advised: ‘‘Imagine you 

were shopping for a [refrigerator/dishwasher] and 

this information was available. Please look at the 

information. You will be asked questions about 

[refrigerators/dishwashers] based on this 

information.’’ Respondents then viewed a single 

energy label and asked (Q510): ‘‘Would any of this 

information be useful to you in making your 

purchase decision?’’ Those who answered ‘‘Yes’’

were then asked (Q515) ‘‘Which parts of this 

information would be most useful to you? Please be 

as specific as possible.’’ When asked about the 

usefulness of information on the label early in the 

questionnaire, roughly 80% of respondents across 

all ten conditions, on average, thought the 

information would be useful (84% for refrigerator 

purchases and 80% for dishwasher purchases). 

57For example, in the refrigerator condition, at 

least 40% of those who saw an operating cost label 

mentioned yearly operating costs, but only about 

25% of those who viewed a categorical label 

mentioned operating cost. This tendency suggests 

that the information featured most prominently on 

the label will be important to consumers. 

58Question series 900 stated: ‘‘There are different 

ways to communicate the energy characteristics of 

an appliance. You can get * information on how 

much energy an appliance uses measured in 

kilowatt-hours, * information on the cost of 

operating an appliance for a year, measured in 

dollars, * energy efficiency ratings based on a fivestar rating system. On a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 

being not at all useful and 10 being extremely 

useful, please rate the usefulness of each type of 

information.’’ Answers were elicited for Energy Use 

in Kilowatt-hours (Q905), Operating Costs 

Measured in Dollars (Q910), and Energy Efficiency 

based on a Five-Star Scale (Q915); the ordering of 

the alternative measures in the statement text and 

questions was randomized. 

59The mean score for kilowatt-hours, operating 

costs, and energy efficiency were 7.4, 8.2, and 7.2 

respectively. 

60Should energy costs change dramatically 

during the interim, the Commission would have the 

discretion to update the figures before the end of 

the five-year period. 

This proposed label marks a return to 

the prominence of operating costs on 

the label. When the Commission first 

issued EnergyGuide label requirements, 

the Rule required operating costs as the 

primary disclosure (44 FR 66466 (Nov. 

19, 1979)). In 1994, the Commission 

relegated cost information to a 

secondary disclosure (see 59 FR 34014 

(July 1, 1994)). At the time, the 

Commission explained that when DOE 

changed its national average energy 

costs, corresponding changes in the 

label’s operating costs could result in 

inconsistent cost information on labels 

in the showroom. (58 FR 12827 (March 

5, 1993)). As explained in more detail 

below, we believe this concern can be 

addressed by changing the frequency at 

which required average energy cost 

information is changed. 

Our research indicated that 

respondents clearly identified operating 

costs as the preferred method for 

communicating energy performance in 

the marketplace. This preference was 

strong and consistent both in answers to 

open-ended questions at the beginning 

of the questionnaire and a series of 

closed-ended questions near the end.56

The contractor coded responses to the 

open-ended questions and grouped 

them into larger categories. Although 

the open-ended responses suggested a 

tendency for respondents to identify the 

information most prominently featured 

on the label they viewed as the ‘‘most 

useful’’ information,57 respondents 

tended to identify cost-related 

information as ‘‘most useful’’ more than 

other types of information regardless of 

which label they viewed. Across all 

label conditions, on average, 67% of 

respondents mentioned cost-related 

information when shown a refrigerator 

label, and 69% of respondents 

mentioned cost-related information 

when shown a dishwasher label. In 

contrast, roughly 40% of the 

respondents mentioned energy 

consumption, roughly 13% of 

respondents mentioned something 

about stars or an ENERGY STAR rating, 

and roughly 2% of respondents 

mentioned something about efficiency. 

The staff’s separate review of a subsample of responses confirmed the 

contractor’s finding that cost is 

mentioned most often as ‘‘most useful.’’

The preference for operating cost 

information also emerged in an analysis 

of responses to a series of closed-ended 

questions asked toward the end of the 

questionnaire.58 For example, 40% of 

all respondents stated that operating 

cost was extremely useful (i.e., a 10 on 

a 0 to 10 scale). In addition, 80% of all 

respondents rated the usefulness of cost 

information a seven or greater rating on 

a scale of 0 to 10. By comparison, 28% 

of total respondents indicated that an 

energy use descriptor was extremely 

useful, and 67% of all respondents rated 

energy use a seven or greater on a 0 to 

10 scale. Only 25% of total respondents 

found the five-star scale to be extremely 

useful and 64% rated the five-star scale 

a seven or greater on the same scale.59

Respondents who viewed the 

categorical label were more likely than 

those in other cells to assign high 

ratings to the five-star scale, giving the 

five-star system a mean score of 8.1 in 

the condition without the ENERGY 

STAR logo and 8.2 in the condition with 

the ENERGY STAR logo. Even for these 

respondents, however, the five-star 

system did not yield higher ratings than 

the operating cost measure. They gave 

the operating cost measure an average 

score of 8.4 in the condition without the 

ENERGY STAR logo and 8.5 in the 

condition with the ENERGY STAR logo. 

In general, the operating cost design 

performed well on the objective tasks. 

For example, in head-to-head 

comparisons between the operating cost 

design and the categorical label design 

under the ENERGY STAR condition, 

there were no statistically significant 

differences in correct responses to 

questions about costs or energy use. The 

only statistically significant difference 

with the ENERGY STAR logo in place 

occurred in the energy efficiency 

ranking task. While the categorical label 

outperformed the operating cost label on 

some objective tasks, the differences in 

most cases were quite modest. 

The research suggests that the 

operating cost disclosure provides a 

clear, understandable tool to allow 

consumers to compare the energy 

performance of different models. We 

expect that consumers find operating 

cost information most useful because it 

is familiar to them and provides a clear 

context from which they can gauge the 

energy efficiency differences of various 

appliances, and allows them to assess 

trade-offs between energy efficiency 

expenditures and other expenditures. 

An operating cost range also provides an 

energy efficiency descriptor that is 

consistent across appliance types, and 

addresses the ‘‘directionality’’ problem 

identified by comments (i.e., more 

efficient models are always lower on the 

range across appliance types). 

We have two concerns, however, with 

the use of operating cost as the primary 

disclosure on a label. We seek 

comments on each. First, as discussed 

by the Commission in 1994, frequent 

changes to average energy cost figures 

used to calculate label disclosures could 

lead to inconsistent labels for models 

displayed in the showroom. To address 

this concern, the Proposed Rule would 

alter the frequency at which the FTC 

considers changing the national average 

energy cost information to once every 

five years.60 We believe that such a 

system would reduce compliance costs 

in addition to concerns about 

inconsistent label information. This 

issue is discussed further in section 

VII.E of this Notice. 

Second, because the operating cost on 

the label is based on a national average, 

the energy cost used to calculate 

information on the label may not be the 

same as the energy cost paid by the 

consumer examining the product. 

Comments at the Workshop suggested 

that most consumers will understand 

average cost information means that 

their actual energy costs are likely to be 

different. (Workshop Tr. at 100–101; 

and 211). For example, one participant 

stated that ‘‘there are varying degrees to 

which an individual household relates 

to that annual operating cost and that 

annual kilowatt hour consumption, and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6849 

61The Proposed Rule would also eliminate the 

definition of ‘‘range of energy efficiency ratings’’ in 

section 305.2 because the term would no longer be 

used in the Rule. 

62The label would also contain an annual cost 

disclosure in the explanatory language at the 

bottom of the label. 

63The fact that respondents report ‘‘willingnessto-pay’’ figures greater than yearly operating costs 

across all treatments suggests that people may 

estimate cost savings over several years. 

Respondents who were willing to pay more for one 

appliance were asked (Q715) ‘‘Why do you say that. 

Please give as much detail as possible.’’ Preliminary 

analysis of these responses suggests that people 

often evaluate future savings based on their 

expected period of appliance use. 

* * * all the research shows that 

consumers are quite savvy and quite 

clear at moderating themselves to the 

average.’’ (Workshop Tr. at 211). We 

seek comments on whether the regional 

variability of energy costs is a 

significant issue for implementing the 

energy cost label. We urge commenters 

to identify their concerns with 

specificity and provide any alternative 

approaches to addressing this issue. 

Additionally, we seek comments on 

all aspects of the Commission’s proposal 

to require operating cost as the primary 

disclosure on the label. To implement 

such a label, the Commission would 

also issue new range information in the 

form of costs for all affected products.61

These ranges would replace those 

currently found in the Appendices to 

the Rule. The Commission is not 

proposing specific range numbers now 

because the 2007 DOE fuel cost 

information is not available yet. 

Publication of range numbers in this 

Proposed Rule Notice, therefore, may 

cause confusion. 

Alternative Proposal: Multiple-Year 

Operating Cost Label 

As an alternative to the annual 

operating cost information on the label, 

the Commission is considering a label 

that discloses operating cost over 

multiple years (e.g., a five-year period). 

Such a disclosure could provide 

consumers with a better understanding 

of the ‘‘lifetime’’ costs associated with 

operating the appliance. Thus, such a 

disclosure may also provide consumers 

with an easier way to gauge the money 

they will save by purchasing more 

efficient products. Additionally, a 

multi-year disclosure may make it easier 

for consumers to perceive the 

magnitude of energy efficiency 

differences among competing products. 

We recognize, however, that expected 

ownership durations may differ 

substantially across consumers and 

products, and consumers may be better 

able to perform their own calculations 

using a one-year estimate rather than a 

five-year estimate. 

The Commission seeks comment on 

whether a ‘‘five-year’’ operating cost 

disclosure should be adopted. We have 

drafted such a label as Figure 2 

(Alternative Proposal).62 In particular, 

we ask commenters to address whether 

the label would suggest to consumers 

that the product would last only five 

years, whether the label should use a 

different time period (e.g., 10 years), 

whether the cost information should be 

discounted to reflect the time-value of 

money, and if so, what assumptions 

should be used to institute a 

discounting procedure.63

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6850 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3EP13FE07.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6851 

64Retailers, including assemblers, who negotiate 

or make sales at a place other than their regular 

places of business must show the information to 

their customers and let them read the information 

before they agree to purchase the product. (See 

§ 305.11(b)(1)(ii)). 

65See, e.g., 44 FR at 66470 (Nov. 19, 1979) (‘‘The 

majority of furnaces are purchased 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.’’). 

66 GAMA #519870–00011, and ARI #519870–

00010. 

67 GAMA explained that consumers sometimes 

purchase replacement residential water heaters 

from retail outlets, but, as often as not, they obtain 

them through contractors. 

GAMA also argued that the recent DOE standards 

have significantly reduced the differences in energy 

use of storage water heaters on the market therefore 

reducing the need for labeling of these products. 

(GAMA #519870–00011). 

68NRCAN #519870–00020. 

69Artcraft (#519870–00004) suggested that the 

energy label for air conditioners and heat pumps 

should include a note steering people toward expert 

advice and also indicated that manufacturers and 

retailers should be encouraged (and preferably 

required) to include a depiction of the energy label 

in leaflets, brochures, and advertising for each 

model. 

Proposed ENERGY STAR Placement 

In response to comments, and 

consistent with the new designs tested 

in the research, the proposed 

amendments allow manufacturers to 

place the ENERGY STAR logo in the 

lower right-hand corner of the label for 

qualified products. Under this proposal, 

the logo may be up to one inch by one 

inch in size. Requirements related to the 

placement of the ENERGY STAR logo 

on the label are found in section 

305.11(f)(12) of the Proposed Rule. 

C. Requirements for Heating and 

Cooling Equipment 

Issue: Currently, the Rule requires 

EnergyGuide labels on central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, 

boilers, and water heaters. (16 CFR 

305.11). Section 305.11 also requires 

manufacturers to provide energy 

information about most of these 

products in the form of fact sheets or 

industry directories. Additionally, 

retailers, including assemblers, who sell 

furnaces or central air conditioners to 

consumers must make available to 

consumers this energy information for 

the heating and cooling products they 

sell.64

These products generally do not 

appear in showrooms where consumers 

can compare labels on competing 

models.65 In its ANPR, the Commission, 

therefore, sought comment on whether 

the Rule should continue to require 

labeling for heating and cooling 

equipment. The Commission also asked 

whether there were alternatives to 

labeling that would more effectively 

communicate energy efficiency 

information to consumers with respect 

to these products. 

To address these questions, it is 

important to begin with a consideration 

of the statutory requirements related to 

labeling these products. Under section 

324(a)(2) of EPCA, the Commission may 

exclude central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, and furnaces from labeling 

requirements if it determines that 

labeling is not technically or 

economically feasible or, alternatively, 

that labels are not likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)). For 

water heaters, the statute directs the 

FTC to require labels unless the 

Commission determines that labeling is 

not technologically or economically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1)). Section 

6294(c) gives the Commission authority 

to require disclosures of energy 

information in printed material 

displayed or distributed at the point of 

sale. In addition, the Commission may 

direct manufacturers to provide 

additional energy-related disclosures in 

information shipped with or attached to 

the product, including instructions for 

the maintenance, use, or repair of the 

covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5)). 

Comments: In response to the ANPR, 

several commenters expressed the belief 

that the Commission should discontinue 

labeling requirements for heating and 

cooling equipment. Both the Gas 

Appliance Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA) and the Air Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) suggested 

that labels for heating and cooling 

equipment do not aid consumers 

because these products are not sold 

through showrooms or by other means 

that allow consumers to examine the 

label before purchase.66 Industry 

representatives at the Workshop 

indicated that these purchases are 

usually made through in-person 

contractor visits or over the telephone. 

Contractors often conduct an on-site 

analysis to determine the appropriate 

equipment for the dwelling. (Workshop 

Tr. at 164). In addition, a GAMA 

representative noted that manufacturers 

currently provide directories to the 

dealers who have them available for 

their customers. (Workshop Tr. at 178). 

GAMA, therefore, urged the FTC to 

eliminate the labeling requirement for 

furnaces, boilers, and water heaters.67

ARI made the same suggestion for 

central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

Finally, NRCAN, in its written 

comments, described its voluntary 

program for heating and cooling 

products, which does not use labeling, 

but instead urges manufacturers to print 

efficiency ratings for their products in 

brochures.68

In comments submitted after the 

Workshop, EEI (#522148–00010) agreed 

that most consumers do not see the label 

on these products until after purchase.69

At the same time, it indicated that an 

‘‘appliance label can provide a 

document that verifies what the 

consumer agreed to purchase, and may 

help provide documentation for a utility 

rebate program, a state tax deduction or 

credit, or federal tax credit.’’ ACEEE 

raised similar concerns about 

eliminating the EnergyGuide label from 

heating and cooling equipment. It 

suggested that the label information is 

useful even though most consumers do 

not see the EnergyGuide at the time of 

purchase. According to ACEEE, its 

research indicates that the label 

provides useful verification of the 

product’s efficiency upon installation 

and allows auditors and consumers 

purchasing an existing home to 

determine the energy efficiency of 

equipment installed by previous 

owners. ACEEE (#519870–00021), 

therefore, urged the FTC to consider 

additional means for providing label 

information to consumers. 

Many commenters provided 

suggestions for improving the current 

requirements to make it more likely that 

consumers will receive energy 

information prior to purchase. Both ARI 

and GAMA urged the Commission to 

require the provision of energy 

information for heating and cooling 

products through existing industry 

databases that are available over the 

Internet. (Workshop Tr. at 161–162, 

163–165). GAMA stated, ‘‘[I]f the FTC 

really wants to be relevant about this 

and really do an effective job with this, 

its focus ought to be on the modern, 

electronic means of communicating this 

information for products like this where 

the purchasing decision is made before 

you see the label.’’ (Workshop Tr. at 

167). 

ARI explained that consumers can 

now obtain an ARI certificate for their 

equipment directly from its online 

directory. This certificate provides 

information about a product such as the 

model number, the name of the 

manufacturer, the product’s efficiency, 

and capacity. This information allows 

consumers to compare what they are 

buying with what a contractor is telling 

them. (Workshop Tr. at 166). ARI 

indicated that it might be possible to 

add operating cost information as well. 

EEI (#522148–00010) suggested that 

the FTC work with home builders and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6852 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

70 GAMA, in written comments, and at the 

Workshop, indicated that water heaters now appear 

in some retail stores. (Workshop Tr. at 185). 

71The proposed marking requirements are in 

section 305.12 and 305.13 of the Proposed Rule. 

Under the Proposed Rule, the marking ‘‘must be 

permanent, legible, and placed on the outside 

surface of the product.’’ To be ‘‘legible,’’ the 

information must be easily viewed by a person 

examining the surface of the product. 

HVAC contractors to create ‘‘certified 

fact sheets’’ that provide efficiency 

information to consumers when they are 

deciding to install a new system. EEI 

indicated that the certified fact sheet 

could be based on information 

downloaded from the ARI or GAMA 

Web sites, and be available for use by 

all home builders and HVAC 

contractors. It could incorporate 

information shown on the current 

appliance labels as well. 

In addition to issues related to central 

air conditioners and furnaces, 

commenters raised a number of issues 

involving water heaters.70 Bosch 

(#522148–00003) urged the Commission 

to use the same scales of comparability 

for instantaneous water heaters and tank 

water heaters. Bosch commented that a 

‘‘water heater is a water heater in terms 

of meeting the needs of the consumer, 

and yet having different scales for 

storage tanks than for tankless muddles 

the message of efficiency. If the goal is 

to steer consumers toward energy 

efficient appliances, then I would 

recommend that the Federal Trade 

Commission use the same scale for all 

water heaters.’’ When this issue was 

discussed at the Workshop, a GAMA 

representative suggested that several 

issues would need to be explored before 

addressing this issue because, for 

example, tank and tankless water 

heaters use different capacity 

measurements. Until such capacity 

issues can be resolved, he suggested that 

the FTC should not combine the two 

products in the same range. (Workshop 

Tr. at 193). Other participants also 

suggested that the ranges should not be 

combined at this time. (Workshop Tr. at 

193 and 195). Finally, one commenter 

(Flanders Precisionnaire #519870–

00003) suggested that EnergyGuide 

labels on heating and cooling equipment 

include a footnote indicating that 

conditions restricting airflow will 

immediately and perhaps significantly 

reduce energy efficiency below the 

levels stated on the label. 

Discussion: The Commission has 

reviewed the comments and proposes to 

amend the current Rule to discontinue 

the EnergyGuide labeling requirements 

for furnaces, boilers, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps. In lieu of 

a labeling requirement, the Proposed 

Rule would require manufacturers to 

mark their units permanently with 

certain energy information. In addition, 

the Commission proposes to amend the 

fact sheet and directory requirements in 

the Rule to streamline and improve 

existing requirements and provide 

manufacturers and contractors with 

different options, such as online 

sources, for providing energy 

information. The Rule would continue 

to require EnergyGuide labeling for 

water heaters. 

As the comments indicate, there is 

very little evidence that the 

EnergyGuide labels currently affixed to 

heating and cooling equipment 

generally assist consumers in their 

purchasing decisions. The comments 

suggest that, in most cases, consumers 

buy these products through contractors. 

There is no evidence that these products 

are widely sold in a showroom or 

similar setting, where a comparative 

energy label would provide significant 

benefits. Instead, it appears that fact 

sheets and directories provide better 

vehicles for providing consumers with 

energy information before purchase. 

Unlike labels affixed to the products 

themselves, consumers can obtain fact 

sheets and directory information 

through retailers (including installers) 

and review the energy performance of 

competing products as they are making 

their decisions. 

As several commenters observed, 

however, the information on labels 

appears to provide a benefit to 

consumers in both their use of existing 

heating and cooling equipment and 

their purchase of replacement products. 

For example, labels that remain on 

installed equipment may be useful to 

consumers when they are gauging their 

household energy use and considering 

new equipment purchases. It may also 

provide information to allow the 

consumer to confirm that the model 

they ordered is the model that has been 

installed by the contractor. Labels also 

can help energy auditors seeking to 

determine the energy characteristics of 

installed equipment. 

Labeling does not appear to be the 

best vehicle for yielding these benefits 

because the stickers can easily be 

removed. Instead, a permanent 

nameplate appears to be a more effective 

tool to provide such information, and 

possibly less costly to industry 

members. EPCA authorizes the 

Commission to require manufacturers to 

attach to the product additional 

information related to energy 

consumption if that information would 

‘‘assist consumers in making purchasing 

decisions or in using the product and 

such requirements would not be unduly 

burdensome to manufacturers.’’ (42 

U.S.C. 6294(c)(5)). Accordingly, the 

Commission proposes requiring that 

manufacturers permanently mark their 

heating and cooling equipment with the 

product’s model number and energy 

efficiency rating in lieu of labeling the 

products. This information could be 

placed on the product’s nameplate or 

other convenient location.71

We expect that such a marking 

requirement would involve minimal 

burden to industry. The California 

Energy Commission already requires 

that these products be marked with 

model number and efficiency 

information. (See, 20 C.C.R. § 1607). As 

a result, it is likely that the FTC marking 

requirement would not create any 

additional burden for most 

manufacturers. In addition, the 

nameplates for these types of products 

provide an existing location to place 

such information. We expect that the 

addition of energy rating information 

would involve a small incremental 

burden. We seek comments on this 

marking proposal. In particular, we 

request that commenters address 

whether additional information should 

be required and the burdens such a 

proposal would impose. 

Finally, because we are proposing to 

eliminate the label, we are not 

proposing to require information about 

restricted airflow on labels as suggested 

by one comment. Manufacturers may 

provide such information in their 

marketing material and instruction 

manuals as long as such information is 

substantiated. We seek comment on 

whether such disclosures should be 

mandatory. 

The Commission is also proposing to 

amend the fact sheet requirements for 

these products to provide more 

flexibility to sellers, ensuring consumers 

have access to energy information. 

Under section 305.14 of the Proposed 

Rule, therefore, manufacturers would 

have the flexibility to provide this 

energy information about their products 

to distributors and retailers through fact 

sheets, directories, or product 

brochures. In addition, manufacturers 

could choose to make the information 

available electronically. In turn, the 

Rule would continue to require retailers 

(including assemblers) to make this 

information available to customers. 

They could make the information 

available in any manner, as long as 

customers are likely to notice the 

information. For example, the 

information could be provided in a 

display, where customers can take 

copies. It could be kept in a binder or 

made available electronically at a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6853 

72The current Rule does not require cost 

information on EnergyGuide labels for heating and 

cooling equipment. 

counter or service desk, with a sign 

telling customers where the information 

can be found. Retailers, including 

assemblers, who negotiate or make sales 

at a place other than their regular places 

of business would have to show the 

required information to their customers, 

just as required under the current Rule. 

If the information is Internet-based, 

retailers (and assemblers) would have 

the option to provide customers with 

instructions to access the information 

online. 

Under the Proposed Rule, the fact 

sheet-related information provided 

would be a simplified version of that 

currently required by the Rule. The 

manufacturer information would 

include: (1) The name of manufacturer 

or private labeler; (2) the trade (brand) 

name; (3) model number(s); (4) capacity 

determined in accordance with section 

305.7; (5) energy efficiency rating as 

determined in accordance with section 

305.5; (6) a statement that the energy 

efficiency ratings are based on U.S. 

Government standard tests; and (7) for 

central air conditioners, the information 

about efficiency ratings for specific 

condenser/coil combinations or, 

alternatively, for the ‘‘most common’’

condenser-evaporator coil 

combinations, as currently required by 

the Rule. We seek comments on all 

aspects of this proposal, including 

whether these disclosures are 

appropriate, and whether manufacturers 

and retailers should have the option to 

provide this information to customers 

through the Internet in lieu of showing 

them paper fact sheets or directories. 

The Commission is not proposing to 

require information about operating 

costs for these products. Operating costs 

for heating and cooling equipment are 

highly dependent on regional 

conditions.72 Although the current DOE 

test procedures provide instructions for 

calculating operating costs in several 

different regions, the calculations can be 

difficult to perform for the average 

consumer. In addition, we are not 

proposing to require range information 

for these disclosures. Range information 

is likely to be of reduced value to 

consumers in the context of industry 

directories and online databases where 

data for comparative models is readily 

available. It addition, it is unclear how 

separate range information can be 

incorporated into catalogs in a way that 

is beneficial to the average consumer. 

We seek comments on this proposal. 

We note that using a uniform national 

average energy cost may be more useful 

to consumers than the multi-region cost 

information currently required in the 

Rule. As an alternative to the proposed 

elimination of cost information for these 

products, the Rule could require 

manufacturers to provide a single 

estimated operating cost for their 

models based on national average 

figures for cooling/heating loads and for 

energy costs (e.g., heating/cooling loads 

based on Region IV as delineated in 10 

CFR Part 430, Subpt. B, Appendix M). 

This information could be accompanied 

by an explanation that the cost 

information represents a national 

average and that individual costs will 

vary based on usage and location. We 

ask for comments on such an annual 

cost disclosure. Comments should 

address whether such a change would 

be feasible for manufacturers, 

technically appropriate, and useful for 

consumers. 

Finally, the comments indicated that 

some water heaters are sold in retail 

stores where consumers can examine 

and compare the product labels. 

Accordingly, we do not propose to 

eliminate EnergyGuide labeling 

requirements for these products nor do 

we propose to require permanent 

marking. In addition, we do not propose 

to change the ranges of comparability 

for these products to combine 

information for tank and tankless water 

heaters. Comments provided to the 

Commission suggest the merger of this 

range information is not currently 

feasible because storage and 

instantaneous models are rated using 

different capacity descriptors. We note 

that the proposed operating cost label 

will allow consumers to compare energy 

cost across different water heater types. 

D. Refrigerator Categories 

Issue: During this proceeding, the 

Commission has explored whether the 

range categories for refrigerators should 

be combined to include models with 

different door configurations and 

features. The current labeling 

requirements designate separate 

comparability ranges for various 

refrigerator sub-categories (or styles) 

such as side-by-side door configurations 

or models with top-mounted freezers. 

This allows consumers easily to 

compare the energy use of similarly 

configured refrigerators, but not the 

energy use of models across 

subcategories. Consumers, however, can 

employ the energy use and operating 

cost information to compare the 

product’s energy performance to other 

refrigerators in the showroom regardless 

of configuration. 

Some refrigerator configurations are 

generally less efficient than others. For 

example, top-mounted freezer models 

generally use less electricity than 

comparably sized side-by-side models. 

As a result, the range information on a 

particular side-by-side refrigerator label 

may compare favorably to other side-bysides, but fail to show that the model 

uses significantly more energy than an 

average refrigerator with a top-mounted 

freezer. To address this concern, the 

FTC sought comments on whether the 

refrigerator labels should present 

comparability information for all 

refrigerators regardless of 

configurations. 

Comments: Consumers Union 

(#519870–00017) indicated that the 

current system for labeling refrigerators 

is deeply flawed. It stated that 

‘‘consumers trying to select a 

refrigerator based on energy efficiency 

must be able to compare across 

categories, instead of within the current 

very narrowly defined subclasses.’’ In 

particular Consumers Union suggested 

that ‘‘the EnergyGuide label show the 

energy use of the appliance in kWh/yr, 

as currently done, but that the label also 

compare the energy used by the 

appliance to the most energy 

consumption allowed by law for any 

refrigerator of comparable internal 

volumes—independent of style.’’ In its 

view, this approach would inform 

consumers that certain product 

configurations use less energy than 

others. At the Workshop, a participant 

from Consumers Union described that 

organization’s approach, which focuses 

on the volume of the product and not 

the configuration. The Consumers 

Union representative raised concerns 

about the fact that ENERGY STAR levels 

are different for various product 

configurations stating: ‘‘You do not 

want to have an ENERGY STAR model 

that uses more energy than a similarly 

sized and split refrigerator that does not 

get an ENERGY STAR.’’ (Workshop Tr. 

at 134). 

Other commenters raised similar 

concerns, urging the Commission to 

consider using the same classification 

category for most refrigerator models. 

ACEEE (#519870–00021) wrote that 

products ‘‘offering the same service 

should be compared on the same label 

regardless of differences in technology 

or design to avoid consumer confusion 

and diminished credibility of the label.’’

ACEEE comments noted that the FTC 

amended the Appliance Rule in the past 

to include comparison of top-loading 

and front-loading washers on the same 

label. At the Workshop, an ACEEE 

representative explained: ‘‘for those 

consumers who are interested in looking 

for the most efficient product in their 

size category or that want to do a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6854 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

73We believe this percentage of respondents may 

be overstated because the question simply asked 

whether respondents could compare the model to 

all similarly-sized models on the market, instead of 

asking respondents to choose from two possible 

answers (e.g., comparison to all similarly-sized 

models vs. comparison to similarly-sized and 

configured models). Many of the respondents may 

have assumed the question related to the range on 

the label without focusing on the subtleties of the 

question’s wording. Nevertheless, the responses 

raise some concerns about whether consumers 

understand that the range of comparability applies 

to specific classes of appliances as opposed to all 

models available on the market. 74 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)(B). 

comparison across class, combining 

them will allow them to do that crossclass comparison, which is otherwise 

very difficult to do.’’ (Workshop Tr. at 

139). Another commenter at the 

Workshop suggested that the use of 

multiple categories for refrigerators may 

confuse consumers, particularly where 

ENERGY STAR models in one class use 

more electricity than non-ENERGY 

STAR models in another class. 

(Workshop Tr. at 146). 

Other commenters cautioned against 

changes to the current ranges for 

refrigerators. AHAM (#522148–00007) 

indicated that its ‘‘research shows when 

consumers enter a retail establishment 

to purchase a refrigerator product, their 

first criteria is product configuration.’’

In its view, ‘‘consumers have already 

decided on the desired configuration 

prior to stepping into a retail outlet.’’

According to AHAM, an amendment 

that merged the different categories of 

products ‘‘would run counter to 

marketplace and consumer purchase 

drivers’’ and would diminish the 

efficacy of the label. At the Workshop, 

an AHAM representative indicated that 

information currently on the label, such 

as operating costs, already permits 

consumers to make comparisons across 

different refrigerator configurations. 

(Workshop Tr. at 142–143). EEI 

(#522148–00010) agreed, stating that the 

current system allows for an ‘‘apples to 

apples’’ comparison of products, such as 

side-by-side refrigerators. EEI suggested 

that consumers may be confused by 

comparisons of models that have 

different energy efficiency requirements 

or sizes. 

Whirlpool (#522148–0005) indicated 

that refrigerator labels should continue 

to be unique by configuration: 

‘‘Configuration (top freezer vs. bottom 

freezer vs. side-by-side) is a primary 

determinant in the purchase decision 

along with physical size of the unit. 

Before the consumer even begins the 

shopping process, they will identify any 

size constraints and consider which 

configuration unit they want.’’

Whirlpool also stated that its 

proprietary market research over the 

past five years repeatedly indicates that 

size, internal configuration, and features 

are major considerations when 

shopping. 

Whirlpool noted that the current label 

classification is consistent with those 

used under DOE’s energy efficiency 

standards that reflect the inherent 

differences in efficiency resulting from 

the physical design of the product. 

Whirlpool believes it would be 

confusing for consumers to combine all 

configurations of refrigerators within a 

cubic foot range. 

Discussion: The Commission is not 

proposing to change the current range 

categories for refrigerators. We recognize 

that requiring more inclusive ranges 

may help consumers to compare energy 

use across model configurations. Such 

an approach, however, runs counter to 

the system used by DOE and by the 

ENERGY STAR rating system. In some 

cases, the combination of refrigerator 

ranges could place ENERGY STAR 

designated models lower on the label 

range than non-ENERGY STAR models. 

This could cause consumer confusion in 

the showroom and may cause confusion 

about the ENERGY STAR designation. 

Accordingly, the Commission does not 

believe that a change in the current 

range system would provide significant 

benefits for consumers and may create 

confusion. 

Although we do not plan to change 

the range categories for these products, 

it may be useful to provide consumers 

with additional information to help 

them understand that different door and 

ice service configurations can affect 

energy consumption. Accordingly, 

section 305.11 of the Proposed Rule 

would require the following explanatory 

statement on refrigerator labels: ‘‘Size, 

door attributes, and ice features affect 

energy use—so other refrigerators may 

have lower or higher operating costs.’’

We request comments on the need for 

and wording of this statement. 

The FTC research also suggested that 

consumers may not understand that the 

comparability range on refrigerators 

applies to a specific category of 

refrigerator-freezers (e.g., freezer on top). 

One question in the study asked 

consumers whether the label allowed 

them to determine how a model 

compared to ‘‘all’’ similarly sized 

refrigerator-freezers on the market. Over 

70% of the respondents indicated they 

could make such a determination based 

on the information from the label. The 

range information on the label in 

question, however, only applied to 

models with side-by-side doors and 

through-the-door ice service.73

The label currently states that the 

range compares ‘‘similar’’ models. To 

reduce the consumer confusion, section 

305.11 of the Proposed Rule would 

require more explicit language on the 

refrigerator-freezer label to clarify that 

the range only applies to the specific 

subcategories of products. For instance, 

the range for a side-by-side through-thedoor ice label would state: ‘‘Range for 

models of similar capacity with 

automatic defrost, side-mounted freezer, 

and through-the-door ice.’’ We seek 

comment on whether such language is 

needed for the label. 

Finally, we note that some 

manufacturers recently have introduced 

refrigerator-freezers with a bottommounted freezer and through-the-door 

ice service. This configuration does not 

match any of the existing FTC or DOE 

categories for refrigerator-freezers. At 

this time, we are not aware that there 

are a significant number of these models 

on the market. Accordingly, we are not 

proposing to amend the categories to 

take these models into account. 

However, we are seeking comment on 

whether the number of such models is 

likely to increase significantly. If so, we 

ask how the categories in the Rule 

should take these models into account, 

if at all (e.g., should an existing category 

be expanded). 

E. Revisions to Ranges of Comparability 

and Energy Price Information 

Issue: The EnergyGuide label must 

contain a range of comparability that 

shows the highest and lowest energy 

consumption or efficiencies for all 

similar appliance models.74 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. 6296(c)). The Commission’s 

regulations indicate that the FTC will 

revise ranges annually, if the upper or 

lower limit on the range for a product 

changes by 15% or more. (16 CFR 

305.10). For some products, the 

Commission has changed the applicable 

ranges several times over the last few 

years, for others less frequently. When 

the Commission makes these changes, 

manufacturers must amend their labels 

to reflect the new ranges and update the 

fuel costs on the labels using new 

national average fuel costs, published 

annually by DOE. Accordingly, the 

average fuel costs used on the label are 

tied to the year in which the ranges 

were last amended. 

Range changes can cause the labels on 

different models in the same showroom 

to display inconsistent information 

because the models on display may 

have been manufactured at different 

times. This potential confusion is 

exacerbated by frequent range changes. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6855 

75As noted in VII.B, the Commission is not 

proposing specific range numbers in the Proposed 

Rule because the 2007 DOE fuel cost information 

is not available at this time and publication of range 

numbers in this Notice may cause confusion. 

Therefore, the proposed range tables are blank. In 

addition, the proposed amendments would move 

the energy cost chart from section 305.9 to 

Appendix H. We also note that the FTC staff has 

completed its review of the 2006 data for central air 

conditioners, refrigerators, and clothes washers. 

Although ranges for some of these products have 

changed by more than 15%, the Commission plans 

to delay any amendments to existing ranges and 

cost information until the completion of the present 

proceeding so that all ranges can be changed at the 

same time. We seek comments on this approach. 

76Alliance Laundry Systems (#519870–00008), 

Whirlpool (#519870–00013), AHAM (#519870–

00016), NRCAN (#519870–00020), and GE 

(#519870–00027). 

77See, ‘‘Washers & Dryers, Cycles of Change,’’

Consumer Reports, Vol. 72, No. 1, Jan. 2007, at 39. 

Frequent range revisions also impose 

burdens on manufacturers who must 

expend resources to change their 

product labels. The ANPR contained a 

series of questions about these issues, 

including whether the FTC should 

change the frequency at which it 

examines the ranges. 

Comments: Several commenters 

suggested that the Commission consider 

uniform changes to range and fuel price 

information on a consistent schedule. 

AHAM (AHAM #519870–00021) 

indicated that the current Rule 

requirements result in inconsistent 

energy rates used to calculate 

information across appliance types (e.g., 

dishwashers compared to refrigerators). 

Under the current system this can 

happen where the ranges for particular 

appliances do not change over a long 

period of time. In such a case, the Rule 

directs manufacturers to continue to 

base their operating costs estimates on 

energy prices that may have been 

published by DOE five or even ten years 

previously. AHAM, therefore, 

recommended that ‘‘the same average 

fuel rates be used on all appliances, and 

that they be uniformly changed every 

two to three years.’’ In its view, this 

would ‘‘avoid the use of rates that are 

too old, keep all appliances using the 

same rates, and allow sufficient time for 

manufacturers to plan inventory of 

labels accordingly.’’ (Workshop Tr. at 

133). Alliance Laundry Systems 

(#519870–00008) concurred with 

AHAM’s recommendation, but 

suggested that the Commission continue 

to consider changes to the comparability 

ranges annually. Artcraft (#519870–

00004) recommended that the 

Commission make revisions more often 

than annually because significant 

changes are occurring in the market all 

the time. 

Discussion: Over the past decade, the 

frequency of range amendments has 

varied by appliance type. Ranges for 

some products, such as dishwashers, 

have changed several times while ranges 

for other products, like room air 

conditioners and water heaters, have 

changed less frequently. Frequent 

changes to the range and cost 

information can exacerbate the problem 

of inconsistent information on 

comparable models sitting side-by-side 

in a showroom. We are concerned that 

the consumer benefit from frequent 

updates to range and cost information 

may be outweighed by the detriment 

caused by this inconsistent information 

in the showroom. 

There also may be confusion caused 

by the use of inconsistent energy price 

information across appliance categories. 

For example, at this time, the operating 

cost on dishwasher labels is based on 

the 2004 average electricity cost of 8.60¢ 

per kilowatt-hour, whereas the cost on 

refrigerator labels is based on the 2005 

figures of 9.06¢ per kilowatt-hour. 

Given these concerns, the 

Commission proposes to amend section 

305.10 to change the frequency with 

which it alters range and national 

average energy price information to 

once every five years. Under the 

amendment, the Commission would 

change automatically both the range 

information and the underlying cost 

information to reflect the most recent 

data once every five years. This 

approach will minimize problems 

associated with inconsistent cost and 

range information on showroom models, 

and make energy cost information 

uniform across appliance categories. If 

energy costs or range information 

change substantially within the fiveyear period, the Commission can 

consider amendments in the interim 

through rulemaking. We seek comments 

on this five-year schedule for updating 

cost and range information. Among 

other things, we ask that commenters 

address whether a five-year cycle is 

appropriate, whether there are other 

ways to minimize confusion caused by 

updates to the energy cost information 

on labels, and whether there is a typical 

length of time that individual display 

models remain on showroom floors.75

F. Energy Descriptors 

Issue: The ANPR sought comment on 

whether the Commission should change 

any of the EnergyGuide’s current energy 

descriptors. For example, the notice 

sought comment on whether the clothes 

washer label should disclose the 

model’s efficiency rating using the 

measure currently required by DOE (the 

‘‘Modified Energy Factor’’ or ‘‘MEF’’) 

instead of the product’s annual energy 

consumption. 

Comments: Several commenters 

responded that the Commission should 

not change current descriptors.76

Whirlpool (#519870–00013) explained 

that the use of Energy Factor 

information would cause consumer 

confusion. AHAM (#522148–00007) 

added that energy consumption 

information (in KWh/yr) is meaningful 

across product categories. 

Discussion: The Commission received 

no comments in support of adopting 

efficiency ratings beyond those 

currently in use. We note that a recent 

news report questions the consistency 

between the MEF information used for 

ENERGY STAR ratings and the washer 

electricity use information on the 

EnergyGuide label.77 Accordingly, we 

seek further comment on this issue. In 

particular, comments should address 

whether MEF information should be 

provided on the label and whether, 

under current test procedures, 

manufacturers can derive annual 

operating cost information from MEF 

ratings. 

G. Placement of the EnergyGuide Label 

on Covered Products 

Issue and Comments: Whirlpool’s 

comments noted that some dishwasher 

manufacturers are placing the 

EnergyGuide label in a plastic bag along 

with the use and care guide warranty. 

Whirlpool (#522148–00005) requested 

that the Commission become more 

diligent in ensuring that manufacturers 

display the label properly. 

Discussion: In the Proposed Rule, the 

Commission has modified and clarified 

the requirements for posting labels. 

Labels must be posted on products in 

one of two ways: an adhesive label or a 

hang tag. In either case, the label must 

be attached to the product so that the 

label ‘‘is prominent to a consumer 

examining the product.’’ Manufacturers 

would be allowed to place the label on 

the exterior or interior of the product if 

it is prominent to consumers examining 

the appliance and as long as it will not 

become dislodged during normal 

handling throughout the chain of 

distribution to the retailer and 

consumer. This directive sets a clear 

performance-based standard that allows 

manufacturers to adjust the location of 

the label depending on the product type 

and configuration. Such an approach 

appears preferable to highly detailed, 

prescriptive requirements that may not 

account for all existing situations or for 

product changes in the future. The 

proposal would also eliminate the 

Rule’s prescriptive requirements related 

to the location of adhesive strips on the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6856 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

78EPCA indicates that catalogs must ‘‘contain all 

information required to be displayed on the label, 

except as otherwise provided by the rule of the 

Commission.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6296(a)). 

79We note that the required information should 

appear on each page that lists the covered product. 

(See § 305.21(a)). 

80EPA (#519870–00012) recommended that the 

Commission include water-use information on the 

EnergyGuide label. Under EPCA, however, the 

information required on clothes washers and other 

covered appliances is limited to information related 

to energy consumption. See 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

back of the label. We are seeking 

comments on this proposal, particularly 

whether hang tags should be allowed on 

the exterior surface of products. 

We note that the insertion of the label 

in a plastic bag along with other 

instructions or marketing material does 

not meet the current or proposed 

requirements because it is neither an 

adhesive label nor a hang tag. In 

addition, this practice could obscure the 

label from view particularly if it is 

layered under other material such as 

manuals or warranties. 

H. Catalog Requirements 

Issue and Comments: Section 305.14 

of the Rule currently requires that any 

manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or 

private labeler who advertises a covered 

product in a catalog, including a Web 

site that qualifies as a catalog, disclose 

the product’s capacity, energy use (or 

efficiency) and range of comparability 

information. No comments addressed 

the current requirements. 

Discussion: The Proposed Rule would 

redesignate section 305.14 as 305.20 and 

amend the section to require disclosures 

of estimated annual operating costs for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, 

room air conditioners, and water 

heaters. This change would make the 

catalog requirements consistent with the 

changes proposed for the EnergyGuide 

label. The Proposed Rule would 

continue to require the disclosure of 

energy efficiency rating information for 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

The Proposed Rule also would 

eliminate the requirement for catalog 

sellers to include range information 

along with their disclosures in the 

catalogs.78 Consumers viewing catalogs 

are likely to see information for a much 

larger number of models than 

consumers in a showroom. Thus, 

catalog shoppers do not have the same 

need for market ranges. In addition, 

because the range information in the 

catalogs cannot always be presented in 

the same form as they appear on the 

label, it may cause confusion or fail to 

provide significant benefit to 

consumers. While the benefits may be 

small, the burdens of providing this 

information may be significant. The 

burdens often fall on retailers who are 

not producing and labeling the products 

themselves. For these reasons, we 

propose to eliminate the range 

information from the catalog 

requirements. We seek comments on 

this proposal. 

Finally, the Proposed Rule also 

contains several changes to the catalog 

disclosure requirements in section 

305.2(m) and newly designated section 

305.20 to clarify that Internet-based 

catalogs must also provide these 

disclosures.79 The Commission 

promulgated these provisions before the 

advent of the Internet. The proposed 

amendments will ensure that Web-based 

catalog sellers understand that they 

must meet the Rule’s disclosure 

requirements. The Commission seeks 

comments on these changes to the 

catalog requirements. 

I. Fuel Cycle Energy Consumption 

Issue and Comments: The American 

Gas Association (AGA) (#519870–

00014) urged the Commission to include 

information on the label about ‘‘energy 

consumption over the full fuel cycle 

(i.e., total energy efficiency) and 

externalities such as emissions of 

criteria air pollutants and carbon 

dioxide over the full fuel cycle’’ in 

addition to information currently 

provided. AGA indicated that without 

this information, the label does not 

allow consumers to ‘‘make truly 

informed choices’’ and provides 

information that is incomplete and 

misleading. 

Discussion: AGA raised similar 

comments in an earlier Commission 

proceeding on the EnergyGuide label. 

(65 FR 17554, 17559 (Apr. 3, 2000)). The 

statute, however, contains a relevant 

restriction on the type of information 

the Commission can require. Under 

section 324(c)(1)(A) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6294(c)(1)(A)), the Commission must 

derive the energy consumption 

information required on the label from 

DOE’s test procedures. These 

procedures measure end-use energy 

only and not the type of energy 

consumption described in AGA’s 

comment. Accordingly, the Commission 

is not proposing to add the type of 

information suggested by AGA. 

J. Clothes Washer Labels 

Issue and Discussion: In 2003, the 

Commission published amendments 

requiring a special headline on clothes 

washer labels indicating that the 

product had been tested under the 2004 

DOE test procedure (68 FR 35458 (June 

18, 2003)). The FTC added this headline 

at the request of industry members 

because the results of the 2004 DOE test 

differed significantly from the previous 

test. Although the explanatory language 

served a good purpose at the time, we 

believe that its continued presence on 

the label will lose its value over time 

and could even confuse consumers as 

the years pass. As the 2004 date 

becomes more distant, the headline may 

suggest that the label or the product 

itself is old, or even obsolete. Given the 

proposed changes to the overall label 

design, we believe the current 

proceeding provides a convenient 

opportunity to eliminate this language. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

amending 305.11 by discontinuing this 

explanatory language on the clothes 

washer label.80

K. Plumbing Issues 

Issue and Comment: The Appliance 

Labeling Rule contains marking and 

package disclosure requirements for 

certain plumbing products such as 

toilets, showerheads, and faucets (see 16 

CFR 305.11(f)). EPA’s Municipal 

Support Division (#519870–00012) 

suggested several changes to the 

labeling requirements for these 

products. EPA staff indicated that its 

own informal survey of retail packaging 

‘‘revealed that on many plumbing 

products it [the required disclosure] is 

obscured either through extremely small 

type fonts or lost amongst other 

information.’’ To address these 

concerns, EPA suggested that the rule 

require the prominent placement of the 

information on the package, a minimum 

font size (e.g., 16 point or greater), and 

the identification of a range of water use 

for similar products. 

Discussion: As with all required 

disclosures, the labeling for plumbing 

products must be clear and conspicuous 

so that consumers can easily find and 

read the relevant information. 

Accessible placement of the information 

not only allows building code officials 

and other professionals to determine a 

product’s water use rate, but also 

facilitates consumers’ ability to 

comparison shop for efficient products. 

EPA’s comments appear to identify 

compliance problems, not defects with 

existing requirements. We are reluctant 

to impose additional requirements on 

all manufacturers to address the failure 

of a few manufacturers to comply with 

the Rule. If problems persist and can be 

traced to defects in the current 

requirements, the Commission may 

consider revisiting this issue and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6857 

81Under EPCA, however, manufacturers may 

elect to include such information on their products. 

42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(8). 

82NRDC (#519870–00025). 

83At the Workshop, one participant suggested 

that the average 42-inch plasma televisions draws 

334 watts, with a minimum draw of 201 watts and 

a maximum draw of 520 watts. Workshop Tr. at 

198. 

84CEE (#519870–00018). 

85Mr. Payne also indicated that it is not necessary 

to have a minimum efficiency standard to require 

labeling for these products. (Workshop Tr. at 208–

209). 

promulgating more prescriptive 

disclosure requirements. 

Additionally, the Commission is not 

proposing to require the inclusion of 

water use range information on 

packaging. The statute does provide a 

mechanism for the Commission to 

establish a format for manufacturers to 

use in making claims involving costs or 

the range of costs of plumbing products. 

The Commission discussed this issue in 

detail in issuing its initial labeling rules 

for plumbing products and decided to 

defer prescribing requirements on this 

issue. (58 FR 54955, 54961 (Oct. 25, 

1993)). At this time, the Commission 

has no evidence that the inclusion of a 

water use range on packaging would 

provide a significant benefit to 

consumers. In addition, such changes 

would likely require manufacturers to 

change existing packaging and update 

packaging in the future. We see no 

compelling need to issue new 

requirements at this time but seek 

comments on this issue.81

One commenter, the California Urban 

Water Conservation Council (#19870–

00015), suggested that labels for toilets 

indicate whether the product is a High 

Efficiency Toiler (HET). According to 

the commenter, a HET functions at a 

maximum flush volume of 20 percent 

less than the current national standard 

of 1.6 gallons per flush (equal to a 

maximum of 1.28 gallons per flush). 

EPCA, however, directs that the 

Commission issue labeling rules for 

water closets that are consistent with 

the marking and labeling requirements 

of ASME A112.19.2M. While the 

inclusion of HET information is not 

inconsistent with ASME requirements, 

we see no need to direct manufacturers 

to provide this information when 

companies appear to have a clear 

incentive to provide this high-efficiency 

information on their own. 

Manufacturers may advertise the 

efficiency of their plumbing products 

through marking, separate labeling, or 

otherwise as long as the product has 

been tested under the applicable DOE 

procedures and the representations 

fairly disclose the results of such testing 

(see 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Accordingly, the 

Commission is not proposing any 

amendments. 

L. Television Labeling 

Issue: Section 324(a) of EPCA requires 

labels for televisions unless the 

Commission determines that labeling is 

not technologically or economically 

feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)). In 1979, the 

Commission determined that labeling 

for televisions was not economically 

feasible; there was little variation in the 

annual energy costs of competing 

television models and such costs were 

a small fraction of the purchase price. 

The Commission, therefore, believed it 

was unlikely that labels for televisions 

would promote industry efforts to 

increase energy efficiency, or provide 

benefits to consumers. (44 FR 66466, 

66468 (Nov. 19, 1979)). As part of the 

May Workshop, the FTC sought 

comment on whether the Rule now 

should require television labeling. 

Comments: Several commenters urged 

that the Commission revisit its 1979 

decision. According to the Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC),82

there are now many ‘‘large-screen’’

digital televisions on the market that use 

500 or more kilowatt-hours per year, as 

much energy as many new 

refrigerators.83 NRDC asserted that, in 

some cases, consumers will pay several 

hundred dollars in electricity costs for 

their televisions over the lifetime of the 

product. NRDC’s comments also 

indicated that there is now a large 

variation in active mode power use 

among similarly-sized televisions. In its 

view, there is no reliable, modelspecific, source of energy-use 

information for new televisions. CEE 

also urged the Commission to consider 

labeling for televisions stating that ‘‘new 

technologies and larger sizes of 

televisions that are currently offered on 

the market argue for their inclusion 

within the scope of the Appliance 

Labeling Rule.’’ 84 CEE noted that 

according to 2001 DOE estimates ‘‘99 

percent of all homes have at least one 

television, with 35 percent having two, 

22 percent having three, and 10 percent 

having four televisions.’’ The DOE data 

also indicate that over a third of 

households had ‘‘large-screen’’

televisions. CEE believes that televisions 

warrant EnergyGuide labels because 

they are ‘‘large energy users and their 

energy use has increased over recent 

years.’’ CEE recommended a label that 

would allow comparisons across model 

types and technologies (e.g., plasma, 

LCD, and CRT). 

Other commenters questioned the 

need and feasibility of television 

labeling. The Consumer Electronics 

Association (CEA) noted that televisions 

are much more energy efficient than 

they were several decades ago. 

According to CEA, the energy 

consumption of a typical 20-inch color 

television has decreased dramatically in 

the last several decades (from 450 watts 

in the 1960s to less than 100 watts in 

1995). CEA also argued that 

technological innovation, not 

government programs, have driven these 

energy efficiency improvements. One 

Workshop participant, Christopher 

Payne, however, suggested that the 

overall improvement in energy 

performance of consumer electronics, 

though admirable, is not really relevant 

to the question of labeling if there is a 

broad range of energy usage among 

various models.85

Several commenters also expressed 

concerns about the usage estimates that 

would be employed to determine annual 

energy use or operating costs. CEA 

(#522148–00009) stated that ‘‘consumer 

use varies significantly with high tech 

products, which typically contain 

multiple features and functions that are 

used in many ways. Consequently, 

determining an average usage pattern is 

very challenging.’’ EEI (#522148–00010) 

noted that the ‘‘energy usage pattern of 

televisions is directly related to the 

number of sets and occupants per 

household’’ and that the test procedure 

should take into account the diversity 

factor of usage. One Workshop 

participant, David Kline of JVC, 

cautioned against using a ‘‘one size fits 

all’’ approach for consumer usage 

estimates. (Workshop Tr. at 206). 

In contrast, another commenter 

suggested that the precise usage 

estimate is not as important as ensuring 

consumers receive comparative 

information about energy use over a 

given time period. (Workshop Tr. at 

210). At the Workshop, a representative 

of the Collaborative Labeling and 

Appliance Standards Program indicated 

that research demonstrates that 

consumers are capable of understanding 

and gauging information about average 

use on labels. (Workshop Tr. at 211–

212). 

To label products consistently, 

manufacturers must have a reliable test 

procedure to generate energy 

consumption information about their 

products. According to CEA (#522148–

00009), current DOE test procedures 

were intended for black-and-white 

analog televisions and ‘‘are entirely 

inappropriate for measuring the energy 

use of digital televisions.’’ NRDC’s 

comments (#519870–00025) also 

indicated that the DOE ‘‘test method is 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6858 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

grossly outdated’’ because it was 

designed for black and white, tubebased televisions. CEE (#522148–

00006), which supports the 

development of an energy label for 

televisions, also acknowledged that the 

current federal test procedure for 

television is not applicable to today’s 

technology, but noted that there is an 

ongoing industry effort to establish a 

new procedure. According to CEA, the 

consumer electronics industry is 

developing a standard test method as 

part of an initiative hosted by the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC). EEI (#522148–00010) 

stated that the FTC would need to wait 

for a new DOE test procedure before 

adding a label for televisions. EEI 

suggested, however, that DOE ‘‘may not 

be able to revise the test procedure for 

television sets in the near future, due to 

their current workload.’’

CEE urged that ‘‘the test procedure 

development should be finalized in 

advance of this rulemaking, a timeline 

that enables the FTC’s active 

consideration of this issue.’’ Until the 

development of such a standard 

method, CEA questioned whether the 

need for televison labeling could be 

adequately assessed. At the Workshop, 

Douglas Johnson of CEA suggested that 

energy consumption estimates offered 

during the meeting were ‘‘relatively 

useless’’ without a standard means of 

measurement. (Workshop Tr. at 199). In 

addition, CEA’s comment concluded 

that the FTC should not pursue a 

labeling program for digital televisions 

given the lack of an acceptable test 

procedure for digital televisions and the 

success of voluntary initiatives. 

Some comments suggested that the 

Commission leave the issue of television 

energy use labeling to the ENERGY 

STAR program. CEA (#522148–00009) 

argued that the ENERGY STAR 

‘‘program creates a competitive 

incentive for energy savings without 

compromising industry innovation or 

consumer choice.’’ It noted that 

widespread use of the voluntary 

program ‘‘promotes energy efficiency 

and has resulted in significant energy 

savings and reduced greenhouse gas 

emissions.’’ EEI (#522148–00010) 

suggested that the FTC consider 

working with EPA and DOE to revise 

the use of the ENERGY STAR labeling 

for television sets. At the Workshop, an 

NRDC representative recognized the 

importance of ENERGY STAR, but 

suggested ‘‘it is not enough here’’

because ENERGY STAR only identifies 

the top 25% of the market and, in the 

absence of an EnergyGuide label, 

consumers would not be able to 

determine the energy consumption of 

models within the balance of the 

market. (Workshop Tr. at 229–231). 

Discussion: The information provided 

by commenters suggests that energy 

labeling for televisions may assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions. This information also 

indicates that many televisions on the 

market use as much, or more, electricity 

than products currently labeled under 

the Rule. In addition, several 

commenters indicated that there is a 

significant range of energy use among 

similar products on the market. The 

energy consumption characteristics of 

televisions, therefore, appear to be 

significantly different than when the 

Commission decided to forgo labeling in 

the 1970s. Based on these comments, we 

believe this issue deserves serious 

consideration. 

At the same time, the record indicates 

that current DOE test procedures are 

inadequate to test most televisions 

currently on the market. Because the 

energy information for a FTC television 

label must stem from test procedures 

prescribed by DOE (see 42 U.S.C. 

6294(c)), the Commission cannot 

proceed until the DOE test is revised. At 

such time, the Commission can consider 

whether the attributes of televisions on 

the market warrant energy labeling. We 

invite further comments on this issue. 

M. Miscellaneous Amendments and 

Issues 

The Commission is proposing several 

minor substantive and formatting 

amendments to improve the current 

Rule. These include the reorganization 

of some sections, a new requirement 

related to refrigerator reporting, and the 

elimination of obsolete or incorrect 

references in the Rule. Commenters 

raised several additional issues that are 

also discussed in this section. 

Alphabetize Definitions and Update 

Definition of Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator Freezers: To make the Rule 

more user-friendly, the Commission is 

proposing to alphabetize the list of 

definitions in § 305.3 and the 

descriptions of covered products in 

§ 305.4. We also are proposing to amend 

the definition of ‘‘refrigerators and 

refrigerator freezers’’ at § 305.3(a) so that 

it is consistent with DOE’s current 

definition (10 CFR 430.2). 

Adjusted Volume Information for 

Refrigerators: The Rule currently does 

not require refrigerator and freezer 

manufacturers to submit the adjusted 

volume of their models to the FTC. 

Adjusted volume data is essential for 

determining whether a refrigerator or 

freezer model meets DOE minimum 

efficiency standards, and thus whether 

it should be considered in updating 

range information for refrigerator labels. 

Absent adjusted volume data, the FTC 

staff has had difficulty determining 

whether submitted models are 

compliant with DOE standards. The 

staff must make such compliance 

determinations to exclude obsolete 

models from its range calculations. 

The Proposed Rule therefore would 

require refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, 

and freezer manufacturers to report the 

adjusted volume of their models along 

with the information currently required 

by the Rule. The Commission proposes 

to require this information in data 

submissions by amending § 305.7(a)&(b) 

and § 305.8. We do not expect that this 

will be a significant burden because this 

information should be readily available 

to manufacturers as it is already 

necessary for determining compliance 

with DOE conservation standards. 

Brand Name Reporting: The 

Commission is proposing to amend 

§ 305.8 to clarify that manufacturers 

must report both the manufacturer name 

and the brand name (if different from 

the manufacturer) of their models. This 

information helps the FTC staff and the 

public identify appliances in the data 

submitted by manufacturers. 

Reorganization of Section 305.11: The 

Commission proposes to break section 

305.11 into several sections organized 

by product category to make it easier for 

manufacturers to identify the 

requirements applicable to their 

products. The new proposed sections 

are: § 305.11 Labeling for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, 

dishwashers, clothes washers, water 

heaters, room air conditioners, and pool 

heaters; § 305.12 Marking Requirements 

for Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps; § 305.13 Marking Requirements 

for Furnaces; § 305.14 Energy 

Information Disclosures for Heating and 

Cooling Equipment; § 305.15 Labeling 

Requirements for Lighting Products; and 

§ 305.16 Labeling and Marking 

Requirements for Plumbing Products. 

Applicability of DOE Test Procedures: 

The Commission proposes to amend 

section 305.5 to clarify that the Rule 

does not apply to covered appliance 

products for which DOE does not have 

a test procedure. The Rule already 

contains such information in the 

descriptions of certain covered products 

in section 305.3 (e.g., water heaters and 

pool heaters). This proposed 

amendment explicitly would apply the 

same sentence to all applicable 

appliance products listed in section 

303.5(a). 

Elimination of Appendix K: The 

Commission proposes to eliminate the 

suggested reporting format in Appendix 

K. Most manufacturers submit data via 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6859 

86 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. 

e-mail using spreadsheet templates 

provided on the FTC Web site. In 

addition, the reporting format in 

Appendix K does not apply to products 

that have been added since the Rule was 

first promulgated in 1979. Accordingly, 

we believe that Appendix K is no longer 

needed. 

Review of Technological Changes: 

CEE (#519870–00018) recommended 

that the Commission consider 

instituting a semi-annual process to 

review technological advancements and 

modify the scope of labeling 

accordingly. The Commission conducts 

periodic reviews of all its regulations on 

a rotating schedule, as it is conducting 

now for the Appliance Labeling Rule. 

During these reviews, the Commission 

seeks comments on the effectiveness of 

the rule in question, the burden it 

imposes, and possible improvements. 

Between such reviews, individuals and 

organizations may contact the 

Commission about problems or possible 

amendments to rules that may be 

needed. Therefore, we have no plans to 

institute formal semi-annual reviews. 

Third-Party Testing: One commenter 

(Schau #519870–00002) urged the 

Commission to require third-party 

testing for covered products. Under 

current DOE and FTC requirements, 

manufacturers may conduct testing 

themselves as long as they follow DOE 

test procedures. The Commission is not 

aware of any evidence of widespread 

energy disclosure problems stemming 

from the fact that third-party testing is 

not required by DOE and FTC 

regulations. Accordingly, we have no 

plans to propose such a requirement. 

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Rule contains disclosure and 

reporting requirements that constitute 

‘‘information collection requirements’’

as defined by 5 CFR 1320.7(c), the 

regulation that implements the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).86 OMB 

has approved the Rule’s information 

collection requirements through August 

31, 2009 (OMB Control No. 3084–0069). 

The proposed amendments make minor 

changes in the current Rule’s existing 

recordkeeping, labeling, and reporting 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Commission has submitted this 

proposed Rule and a Supporting 

Statement to OMB for review under the 

PRA. 

The Commission’s burden estimates 

for the proposed Rule are based on data 

submitted by manufacturers to the FTC 

under current requirements and the 

staff’s general knowledge of 

manufacturing practices. 

The proposed amendments would 

require manufacturers of products with 

the EnergyGuide label to change their 

labels to the new design. Under the 

current Rule, manufacturers routinely 

change labels to reflect new range and 

cost data. The new label design will 

require a one-time drafting change for 

the manufacturers. The Commission 

estimates that this one time change will 

take 40 hours per manufacturer. The 

Commission further estimates that there 

are approximately 300 manufacturers of 

affected covered products. Therefore, 

the proposed label design change would 

result in a one-time burden of 12,000 

hours (300 manufacturers × 40 hours). 

In calculating the associated labor cost 

estimate, the Commission assumes that 

the label design change will be 

implemented by clerical workers at an 

hourly wage rate of $14.59 per hour 

based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 

information. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the proposed label design 

change would result in a one-time labor 

cost of approximately $175,080 (12,000 

hours × $14.59 per hour) 

The proposal to eliminate labels for 

heating and cooling equipment will 

significantly reduce the burden for 

manufacturers of those products. While 

there will be additional burden in 

marking their products with efficiency 

rating information, this burden is likely 

to be offset by the elimination of the 

labeling requirements. 

As discussed above, the Commission 

anticipates that the provision of 

adjusted volume information for 

refrigerator manufacturers will not 

result in a significant burden increase 

because this information should be 

readily available to manufacturers as it 

is necessary to determine compliance 

with DOE conservation standards. 

Accordingly, the Commission has not 

made an adjustment to its previous 

burden estimate due to this de minimis 

increase in reporting of the data already 

required by the Rule. 

The Proposed Rule would also require 

retailers who sell through catalogs to 

disclose information about annual 

operating cost information instead of the 

annual energy consumption information 

for certain products and provide an 

explanatory statement in the catalog 

similar to that which appears on the 

label. It would also eliminate the 

requirement for catalog sellers to list the 

range of comparability information. The 

Commission’s previous estimate of the 

Rule’s burden on catalog sellers 

(including Internet sellers) has assumed 

conservatively that catalog sellers must 

enter their data for each product into the 

catalog each year (see 69 FR 64289, 

64293 (Nov. 4, 2004)). The proposed 

Rule changes would not alter that 

assumption because the amendments 

would require a one-time change of all 

products in affected catalogs. This onetime change is consistent with previous 

burden estimates. Accordingly, the 

Commission does not believe any 

change is required to the existing 

burden estimates for catalog sellers. 

The Commission invites comments 

that will enable it to: (1) Evaluate 

whether the proposed collections of 

information are necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Commission, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) evaluate the accuracy of the 

Commission’s estimate of the burden of 

the proposed collections of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; (3) 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(4) minimize the burden of the 

collections of information on those who 

must comply, including through the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments on any proposed filing, 

recordkeeping, or disclosure 

requirements that are subject to 

paperwork burden review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act should 

additionally be submitted to: Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

Attention: Desk Officer for Federal 

Trade Commission. Comments should 

be submitted via facsimile to (202) 395–

6974 because U.S. postal mail at the 

OMB is subject to lengthy delays due to 

heightened security precautions. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that 

the Commission provide an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘IRFA’’) with a proposed Rule and a 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’), if any, with the final Rule, 

unless the Commission certifies that the 

Rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 

603–605. 

The Commission does not anticipate 

that the proposed Rule will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission recognizes that some 

of the affected manufacturers may 

qualify as small businesses under the 

relevant thresholds. We do not expect 

that the economic impact of 

implementing the design change will be 

significant. The Commission plans to 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6860 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

provide manufacturers with ample time 

to implement this new design. The 

Commission estimates that these new 

requirements will apply to about 300 

product manufacturers and an 

additional 150 online and paper catalog 

sellers of covered products. Out of these 

companies, the Commission expects 

that approximately 300 qualify as small 

businesses. In addition, the Commission 

does not expect that the requirements 

specified in the Proposed Rule will have 

a significant impact on these entities. 

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 

certifies under the RFA that the Rule 

proposed in this notice would not, if 

promulgated, have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of 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 

Section 137 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (‘‘EPACT 2005’’) (Pub. L 109–

58) requires the Commission to conduct 

a rulemaking to consider the 

effectiveness of the consumer products 

labeling program. 

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 appliance labeling program. 

Section 137 of EPACT 2005 amends 

section 324 of EPCA to require the 

Commission to examine ‘‘the 

effectiveness of the consumer products 

labeling program in assisting consumers 

in making purchasing decisions and 

improving energy efficiency.’’

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rule Will Apply 

Under the Small Business Size 

Standards issued by the Small Business 

Administration, refrigerator and laundry 

equipment manufacturers qualify as 

small businesses if they have fewer than 

1,000 employees (for other household 

appliances the figure is 500 employees). 

Appliance retailers qualify as small 

businesses if their sales are less than 

$8.0 million annually. The Commission 

estimates that fewer than 300 entities 

subject to the Proposed Rule’s 

requirements qualify as small 

businesses. The Commission seeks 

comment and information with regard 

to the estimated number or 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 Commission recognizes that the 

proposed labeling rule will involve 

some increased drafting costs and 

reporting requirements for appliance 

manufacturers. As discussed in this 

notice, the increase reporting burden 

should be de minimis. The transition to 

the use of a new label design should 

represent a one-time cost that will not 

be substantial. The Commission does 

not expect that the labeling 

requirements will impose significant 

additional costs on catalog sellers. All of 

these burdens are discussed in section 

VIII. of this notice and there should be 

no difference in that burden as applied 

to small businesses. The Commission 

invites comment and information on 

these issues. 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The Commission has not identified 

any other federal statutes, rules, or 

policies that would duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the proposed Rule. 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 such 

small entities. As one alternative to 

reduce burden, the Commission could 

delay the Rule’s effective date to 

provide additional time for small 

business compliance. The Commission 

could also consider further reductions 

in the amount of information catalog 

sellers must provide. If the comments 

filed in response to this notice identify 

small entities that are affected by the 

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. 

X. Additional Questions for Comment 

All comments should be filed as 

prescribed in the ADDRESSES section 

above, and must be received on or 

before April 16, 2007. In addition to the 

questions and requests for comment 

found throughout this Notice, we also 

ask that commenters address the 

following questions: What costs or 

burdens, and any other impacts, would 

the proposed requirements impose, and 

on whom? What regulatory alternatives 

to the proposed requirements are 

available that would reduce the burdens 

of the proposed requirements? How 

would such alternatives affect the 

benefits provided by the proposed Rule? 

XI. Proposed Rule Language 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 

Advertising, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Labeling, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, the 

Commission proposes the following 

amendments to 16 CFR Part 305: 

PART 305—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for Part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

2. Section 305.2 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.2 Definitions. 

(a) Act means the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (Pub. L. 94–163), and 

amendments thereto. 

(b) ANSI means the American 

National Standards Institute and, as 

used herein, is the prefix for national 

standards and codes adopted by ANSI. 

(c) ASME means the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers and, as 

used herein, is the prefix for national 

standards and codes adopted by ASME. 

(d) Average lamp efficacy means the 

lamp efficacy readings taken over a 

statistically significant period of 

manufacture with the readings averaged 

over that period. 

(e) Ballast efficacy factor means the 

relative light output divided by the 

power input of a fluorescent lamp 

ballast, as measured under test 

conditions specified in American 

National Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) 

standard C82.2–1984, or as may be 

prescribed by the Secretary of Energy. 

Copies of ANSI standard C82.2–1984 

may be obtained from the American 

National Standards Institute, 11 West 

42nd St., New York, NY 10036. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6861 

(f) Base for lamps means the portion 

of the lamp which screws into the 

socket. 

(g) Bulb shape means the shape of the 

lamp, especially the glass portion. 

(h) Catalog means printed material, 

including material disseminated over 

the Internet, which contains the terms of 

sale, retail price, and instructions for 

ordering, from which a retail consumer 

can order a covered product. 

(i) Color rendering index or CRI for 

lamps means the measure of the degree 

of color shift objects undergo when 

illuminated by a light source as 

compared with the color of those same 

objects when illuminated by a reference 

source of comparable color temperature. 

(j) Commission means the Federal 

Trade Commission. 

(k) Consumer product means any 

article (other than an automobile, as 

‘‘automobile’’ is defined in 15 U.S.C. 

2001(1) [sec. 501(1) of the Motor Vehicle 

Information and Cost Savings Act]) of a 

type—

(1) Which in operation consumes, or 

is designed to consume, energy or, with 

respect to showerheads, faucets, water 

closets, and urinals, water; and 

(2) Which, to any significant extent, is 

distributed in commerce for personal 

use or consumption by individuals; 

Without regard to whether such 

article or such type is in fact distributed 

in commerce for personal use or 

consumption by an individual, except 

that such term includes fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, general service 

fluorescent lamps, medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, general 

service incandescent lamps (including 

incandescent reflector lamps), 

showerheads, faucets, water closets, and 

urinals distributed in commerce for 

personal or commercial use or 

consumption. 

(l) Consumer appliance product 

means any of the following consumer 

products, excluding those products 

designed solely for use in recreational 

vehicles and other mobile equipment: 

(1) Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

and freezers that can be operated by 

alternating current electricity, 

excluding—

(i) Any type designed to be used 

without doors; and 

(ii) Any type which does not include 

a compressor and condenser unit as an 

integral part of the cabinet assembly. 

(2) Dishwashers. 

(3) Water heaters. 

(4) Room air conditioners. 

(5) Clothes washers. 

(6) Clothes dryers. 

(7) Central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps. 

(8) Furnaces. 

(9) Direct heating equipment. 

(10) Pool heaters. 

(11) Kitchen ranges and ovens. 

(12) Television sets. 

(13) Fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

(14) General service fluorescent 

lamps. 

(15) Medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps. 

(16) General service incandescent 

lamps, including incandescent reflector 

lamps. 

(17) Showerheads. 

(18) Faucets. 

(19) Water closets. 

(20) Urinals. 

(21) Any other type of consumer 

product that the Department of Energy 

classifies as a covered product under 

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

6292). 

(m) Correlated color temperature for 

lamps means the absolute temperature 

of a blackbody whose chromaticity most 

nearly resembles that of the light source. 

(n) Covered product means any 

consumer product or consumer 

appliance product described in § 305.3 

of this part. 

(o) Distributor means a person (other 

than a manufacturer or retailer) to 

whom a consumer appliance product is 

delivered or sold for purposes of 

distribution in commerce. 

(p) Energy efficiency rating means the 

following product-specific energy usage 

descriptors: annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (AFUE) for furnaces; energy 

efficiency ratio (EER) for room air 

conditioners; seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio (SEER) for the cooling function of 

central air conditioners and heat pumps; 

heating seasonal performance factor 

(HSPF) for the heating function of heat 

pumps; 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. 

(q) Estimated annual energy 

consumption and estimated annual 

operating cost—(1) Estimated annual 

energy consumption means the energy 

or (for products described in sections 

305.3(n)–(q)) water that is likely to be 

consumed annually in representative 

use of a consumer product, as 

determined in accordance with tests 

prescribed under section 323 of the Act 

(42 U.S.C. 6293). 

(i) Kilowatt-hour use per year, or 

kWh/yr., means estimated annual energy 

consumption expressed in kilowatthours of electricity. 

(ii) Therm use per year, or therms/yr., 

means estimated annual energy 

consumption expressed in therms of 

natural gas. 

(iii) Gallon use per year, or gallons/ 

yr., means estimated annual energy 

consumption expressed in gallons of 

propane or No. 2 heating oil. 

(2) Estimated annual operating cost 

means the aggregate retail cost of the 

energy that is likely to be consumed 

annually in representative use of a 

consumer product, as determined in 

accordance with tests prescribed under 

section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293). 

(r) Flow restricting or controlling 

spout end device means an aerator used 

in a faucet. 

(s) Flushometer valve means a valve 

attached to a pressured water supply 

pipe and so designed that, when 

actuated, it opens the line for direct 

flow into the fixture at a rate and 

quantity to operate properly the fixture, 

and then gradually closes to provide 

trap reseal in the fixture in order to 

avoid water hammer. The pipe to which 

this device is connected is in itself of 

sufficient size that, when opened, will 

allow the device to deliver water at a 

sufficient rate of flow for flushing 

purposes. 

(t) IES means the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

and, as used herein, is the prefix for test 

procedures adopted by IES. 

(u) Lamp efficacy means the light 

output of a lamp divided by its wattage, 

expressed in lumens per watt (LPW). 

(v) Lamp type means all lamps 

designated as having the same electrical 

and lighting characteristics and made by 

one manufacturer. 

(w) Life and lifetime for lamps mean 

length of operating time of a statistically 

large group of lamps between first use 

and failure of 50 percent of the group. 

(x) Light output for lamps means the 

total luminous flux (power) of a lamp in 

lumens. 

(y) Luminaire means a complete 

lighting unit consisting of a fluorescent 

lamp or lamps, together with parts 

designed to distribute the light, to 

position and protect such lamps, and to 

connect such lamps to the power supply 

through the ballast. 

(z) Manufacturer means any person 

who manufactures, produces, 

assembles, or imports a consumer 

appliance product. Assembly operations 

which are solely decorative are not 

included. 

(aa) New covered product, as used in 

§ 305.4, means a covered product the 

title of which has not passed to a 

purchaser who buys the product for 

purposes other than resale or leasing for 

a period in excess of one year. 

(bb) Private labeler means an owner of 

a brand or trademark on the label of a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6862 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

consumer appliance product which 

bears a private label. 

(cc) Range of comparability means a 

group of models within a class of 

covered products, each model of which 

satisfies approximately the same 

consumer needs. 

(dd) Range of estimated annual 

energy cost means the range of 

estimated annual energy cost per year of 

all models within a designated range of 

comparability. 

(ee) Retailer means a person to whom 

a consumer appliance product is 

delivered or sold, if such delivery or 

sale is for purposes of sale or 

distribution in commerce to purchasers 

who buy such product for purposes 

other than resale. The term retailer 

includes purchasers of appliances who 

install such appliances in newly 

constructed or newly rehabilitated 

housing, or mobile homes, with the 

intent to sell the covered appliances as 

part of the sale of such housing or 

mobile homes. 

(ff) Water use means the quantity of 

water flowing through a showerhead, 

faucet, water closet, or urinal at point of 

use, determined in accordance with test 

procedures under section 323 of the Act, 

42 U.S.C. 6293. 

(gg) Wattage for lamps means the total 

electrical power consumed by a lamp in 

watts, after an initial seasoning period 

and including, for fluorescent lamps, arc 

watts plus cathode watts. 

3. In § 305.3, paragraphs (a)(1), (d), 

and (r) are revised to read as follows: 

§ 305.3 Description of covered products. 

(a) * * * (1) Electric refrigerator 

means a cabinet designed for the 

refrigerated storage of food at 

temperatures above 32 [deg] F and 

below 39 [deg] F, configured for general 

refrigerated food storage, and having a 

source of refrigeration requiring single 

phase, alternating current electric 

energy input only. An electric 

refrigerator may include a compartment 

for the freezing and storage of food at 

temperatures below 32 [deg] F, but does 

not provide a separate low temperature 

compartment designed for the freezing 

and storage of food at temperatures 

below 8 [deg]F. 

* * * * * 

(d) Water heater means a product 

which utilizes oil, gas, or electricity to 

heat potable water for use outside the 

heater upon demand, including—

(1) Storage type units which heat and 

store water at a thermostatically 

controlled temperature, including gas 

storage water heaters with an input of 

75,000 Btu per hour or less, oil storage 

water heaters with an input of 105,000 

Btu per hour or less, and electric storage 

water heaters with an input of 12 

kilowatts or less; 

(2) Instantaneous type units which 

heat water but contain no more than one 

gallon of water per 4,000 Btu per hour 

of input, including gas instantaneous 

water heaters with an input of 200,000 

Btu per hour or less, oil instantaneous 

water heaters with an input of 210,000 

Btu per hour or less, and electric 

instantaneous water heaters with an 

input of 12 kilowatts or less; and 

(3) Heat pump type units, with a 

maximum current rating of 24 amperes 

at a voltage no greater than 250 volts, 

which are products designed to transfer 

thermal energy from one temperature 

level to a higher temperature level for 

the purpose of heating water, including 

all ancillary equipment such as fans, 

storage tanks, pumps, or controls 

necessary for the device to perform its 

function. 

* * * * * 

(r) Pool heater means an appliance 

designed for heating nonpotable water 

contained at atmospheric pressure, 

including heating water in swimming 

pools, spas, hot tubs and similar 

applications. 

4. In § 305.5, paragraph (a) is revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 305.5 Determinations of estimated 

annual energy consumption, estimated 

annual operating cost, and energy 

efficiency rating, and of water use rate. 

(a) Procedures for determining the 

estimated annual energy consumption, 

the estimated annual operating costs, 

the energy efficiency ratings, and the 

efficacy factors of the following covered 

products are those located in 10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B. For the following 

list of covered products, the 

requirements of this part apply only to 

products for which the Department of 

Energy has adopted and published test 

procedures for measuring energy usage. 

(1) Refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers § 430.23(a). 

(2) Freezers—§ 430.23(b). 

(3) Dishwashers—§ 430.23(c). 

(4) Water heaters—§ 430.23(e). 

(5) Room air conditioners—

§ 430.23(f). 

(6) Clothes washers—§ 430.23(j). 

(7) Central air conditioners and heat 

pumps—§ 430.23(m). 

(8) Furnaces—§ 430.23(n). 

(9) Pool Heaters—§ 430.23(p) 

(10) Fluorescent lamp ballasts—

§ 430.23(q). 

* * * * * 

5. Section 305.7 (a) and (b) are revised 

to read as follows: 

§ 305.7 Determinations of capacity. 

* * * * * 

(a) Refrigerators and refrigeratorfreezers. The capacity shall be the total 

refrigerated volume (VT) and the 

adjusted total volume (AV) in cubic feet, 

rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a 

cubic foot, as determined according to 

appendix A1 to 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B. 

(b) Freezers. The capacity shall be the 

total refrigerated volume (VT) and the 

adjusted total volume (AV) in cubic feet, 

rounded to the nearest one-tenth of a 

cubic foot, as determined according to 

appendix B1 to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B. 

* * * * * 

6. In § 305.8, paragraph (a)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 305.8 Submission of data. 

(a)(1) Each manufacturer of a covered 

product (except manufacturers of 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, urinals, general 

service fluorescent lamps, medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, or general 

service incandescent lamps including 

incandescent reflector lamps) shall 

submit annually to the Commission a 

report listing the estimated annual 

energy consumption (for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes 

washers, dishwashers and water 

heaters) or the energy efficiency rating 

(for room air conditioners, central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, and 

pool heaters) for each basic model in 

current production, determined 

according to § 305.5 and statistically 

verified according to § 305.6. The report 

must also list, for each basic model in 

current production: the manufacturer 

name, the brand name (if different from 

the manufacturer’s name), the model 

numbers for each basic model; the total 

energy consumption, determined in 

accordance with § 305.5, used to 

calculate the estimated annual energy 

consumption or energy efficiency rating; 

the number of tests performed; and its 

capacity, determined in accordance 

with § 305.7. For those models that use 

more than one energy source or more 

than one cycle, each separate amount of 

energy consumption, measured in 

accordance with § 305.5, shall be listed 

in the report. Starting serial numbers or 

other numbers identifying the date of 

manufacture of covered products shall 

be submitted whenever a new basic 

model is introduced on the market. 

* * * * * 

§ 305.9 [Removed and Reserved] 

7. Section 305.9 is removed and 

reserved. 

8. Section 305.10 is revised to read as 

follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6863 

§ 305.10 Ranges of Comparability 

Information on the Required Labels. 

(a) Range of Estimated Annual 

Operating Cost. The range of estimated 

annual estimated operating costs for 

each covered product (except 

fluorescent lamp ballasts, lamps, central 

air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, 

showerheads, faucets, water closets or 

urinals) shall be taken from the 

appropriate appendix to this rule in 

effect at the time the labels are affixed 

to the product. The Commission shall 

publish revised ranges every five years 

beginning in 2012 in the Federal 

Register. When the ranges are revised, 

all information disseminated after 90 

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 National Average 

Representative Unit Cost to be used on 

labels as required by § 305.11 of this 

Part are listed in Appendix H to this 

Part. The Commission shall publish 

revised National Average Representative 

Unit Cost figures every five years 

beginning in 2012 in the Federal 

Register. When the cost figures are 

revised, all information disseminated 

after 90 days following the publication 

of the revision shall conform to the new 

cost figure. 

(c) Operating Costs Outside Current 

Range. When the estimated annual 

operating cost of a given model of a 

covered product falls outside the limits 

of the current range for that product, 

which could result from the 

introduction of a new or changed 

model, the manufacturer shall: 

(1) Omit placement of such product 

on the scale, and 

(2) Add the sentence below, as 

appropriate, in the space just below the 

scale, as follows: 

The estimated annual operating cost of this 

model was not available at the time the range 

was published. 

§§ 305.13, 305.14, 305.15, 305.16, 305.17, 

305.18, and 305.19 [Redesignated as 

305.19, 305.20, 305.21, 305.22, 305.23, 

305.24 and 305.25] 

9. Sections 305.13, 305.14, 305.15, 

305.16, 305.17, 305.18 and 305.19 are 

redesignated as 305.19, 305.20, 305.21, 

305.22, 305.23, 305.24 and 305.25 

respectively. 

10. Section 305.15 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.15 Labeling Requirements for 

Lighting Products. 

(a) Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts and 

Luminaires—(1) Contents. Fluorescent 

lamp ballasts that are ‘‘covered 

products,’’ as defined in § 305.2(n), and 

to which standards are applicable under 

section 325 of the Act, shall be marked 

conspicuously, in color-contrasting ink, 

with a capital letter ‘‘E’’ printed within 

a circle. Packaging for such fluorescent 

lamp ballasts, as well as packaging for 

luminaires into which they are 

incorporated, shall also be marked 

conspicuously with a capital letter ‘‘E’’

printed within a circle. For purposes of 

this section, the encircled capital letter 

‘‘E’’ will be deemed ‘‘conspicuous,’’ in 

terms of size, if it is as large as either 

the manufacturer’s name or another 

logo, such as the ‘‘UL,’’ ‘‘CBM’’ or 

‘‘ETL’’ logos, whichever is larger, that 

appears on the fluorescent lamp ballast, 

the packaging for such ballast or the 

packaging for the luminaire into which 

the covered ballast is incorporated, 

whichever is applicable for purpose of 

labeling. 

(2) Product Labeling. The encircled 

capital letter ‘‘E’’ on fluorescent lamp 

ballasts must appear conspicuously, in 

color-contrasting ink, (i.e., in a color 

that contrasts with the background on 

which the encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’ is 

placed) on the surface that is normally 

labeled. It may be printed on the label 

that normally appears on the fluorescent 

lamp ballast, printed on a separate label, 

or stamped indelibly on the surface of 

the fluorescent lamp ballast. 

(3) Package Labeling. For purposes of 

labeling under this section, packaging 

for such fluorescent lamp ballasts and 

the luminaires into which they are 

incorporated consists of the plastic 

sheeting, or ‘‘shrink-wrap,’’ covering 

pallet loads of fluorescent lamp ballasts 

or luminaires as well as any containers 

in which such fluorescent lamp ballasts 

or the luminaires into which they are 

incorporated are marketed individually 

or in small numbers. The encircled 

capital letter ‘‘E’’ on packages 

containing fluorescent lamp ballasts or 

the luminaires into which they are 

incorporated must appear 

conspicuously, in color-contrasting ink, 

on the surface of the package on which 

printing or a label normally appears. If 

the package contains printing on more 

than one surface, the label must appear 

on the surface on which the product 

inside the package is described. The 

encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’ may be 

printed on the surface of the package, 

printed on a label containing other 

information, printed on a separate label, 

or indelibly stamped on the surface of 

the package. In the case of pallet loads 

containing fluorescent lamp ballasts or 

the luminaires into which they are 

incorporated, the encircled capital letter 

‘‘E’’ must appear conspicuously, in 

color-contrasting ink, on the plastic 

sheeting, unless clear plastic sheeting is 

used and the encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’

is legible underneath this packaging. 

The encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’ must 

also appear conspicuously on any 

documentation that would normally 

accompany such a pallet load. The 

encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’ may appear 

on a label affixed to the sheeting or may 

be indelibly stamped on the sheeting. It 

may be printed on the documentation, 

printed on a separate label that is 

affixed to the documentation or 

indelibly stamped on the 

documentation. 

(b) Lamps—(1)(i) Any covered 

product that is a compact fluorescent 

lamp or general service incandescent 

lamp (including an incandescent 

reflector lamp) shall be labeled clearly 

and conspicuously on the product’s 

principal display panel with the 

following information: 

(A) The number of lamps included in 

the package, if more than one; 

(B) The design voltage of each lamp 

included in the package, if other than 

120 volts; 

(C) The light output of each lamp 

included in the package, expressed in 

average initial lumens; 

(D) The electrical power consumed 

(energy used) by each lamp included in 

the package, expressed in average initial 

wattage; 

(E) The life of each lamp included in 

the package, expressed in hours. 

(ii) The light output, energy usage and 

life ratings of any covered product that 

is a medium base compact fluorescent 

lamp or general service incandescent 

lamp (including an incandescent 

reflector lamp), shall appear in that 

order and with equal clarity and 

conspicuousness on the product’s 

principal display panel. The light 

output, energy usage and life ratings 

shall be disclosed in terms of ‘‘lumens,’’

‘‘watts’’ and ‘‘hours’’ respectively, with 

the lumens, watts and hours rating 

numbers each appearing in the same 

type style and size and with the words 

‘‘lumens,’’ ‘‘watts’’ and ‘‘hours’’ each 

appearing in the same type style and 

size. The words ‘‘light output,’’ ‘‘energy 

used’’ and ‘‘life’’ shall precede and have 

the same conspicuousness as both the 

rating numbers and the words 

‘‘lumens,’’ ‘‘watts’’ and ‘‘hours,’’ except 

that the letters of the words ‘‘lumens,’’

‘‘watts’’ and ‘‘hours’’ shall be 

approximately 50% of the sizes of those 

used for the words ‘‘light output,’’

‘‘energy used’’ and ‘‘life’’ respectively. 

(iii) The light output, energy usage 

and life ratings of any covered product 

that is a medium base compact 

fluorescent lamp or general service 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6864 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

incandescent lamp (including an 

incandescent reflector lamp), shall be 

measured at 120 volts, regardless of the 

lamp’s design voltage. If a lamp’s design 

voltage is 125 volts or 130 volts, the 

disclosures of the wattage, light output 

and life ratings shall in each instance 

be: 

(A) At 120 volts and followed by the 

phrase ‘‘at 120 volts.’’ In such case, the 

labels for such lamps also may disclose 

the lamp’s wattage, light output and life 

at the design voltage (e.g., ‘‘Light Output 

1710 Lumens at 125 volts’’); or 

(B) At the design voltage and followed 

by the phrase ‘‘at (125 volts/130 volts)’’

if the ratings at 120 volts are disclosed 

clearly and conspicuously on another 

panel of the package, and if all panels 

of the package that contain a claimed 

light output, wattage or life clearly and 

conspicuously identify the lamp as 

‘‘(125 volt/130 volt),’’ and if the 

principal display panel clearly and 

conspicuously discloses the following 

statement: 

This product is designed for (125/130) 

volts. When used on the normal line voltage 

of 120 volts, the light output and energy 

efficiency are noticeably reduced. See (side/ 

back) panel for 120 volt ratings. 

(iv) For any covered product that is an 

incandescent reflector lamp, the 

required disclosure of light output shall 

be given for the lamp’s total forward 

lumens. 

(v) For any covered product that is a 

compact fluorescent lamp, the required 

light output disclosure shall be 

measured at a base-up position; but, if 

the manufacturer or private labeler has 

reason to believe that the light output at 

a base-down position would be more 

than 5% different, the label also shall 

disclose the light output at the basedown position or, if no test data for the 

base-down position exist, the fact that at 

a base-down position the light output 

might be more than 5% less. 

(vi) For any covered product that is a 

compact fluorescent lamp or a general 

service incandescent lamp (including an 

incandescent reflector lamp), there shall 

be clearly and conspicuously disclosed 

on the principal display panel the 

following statement: 

To save energy costs, find the bulbs with 

the (beam spread and) light output you need, 

then choose the one with the lowest watts.’’

(vii) For any covered product that is 

a general service incandescent lamp and 

operates with multiple filaments, the 

principal display panel shall disclose 

clearly and conspicuously, in the 

manner required by paragraph (b)(1)(i)–

(iii) and (vi) of this section, the lamp’s 

wattage and light output at each of the 

lamp’s levels of light output and the 

lamp’s life measured on the basis of the 

filament that fails first. 

(2) Any covered product that is a 

general service fluorescent lamp or an 

incandescent reflector lamp shall be 

labeled clearly and conspicuously with 

a capital letter ‘‘E’’ printed within a 

circle and followed by an asterisk. The 

label shall also clearly and 

conspicuously disclose, either in close 

proximity to that asterisk or elsewhere 

on the label, the following statement: 

*[The encircled ‘‘E’’] means this bulb 

meets Federal minimum efficiency standards. 

(i) If the statement is not disclosed on 

the principal display panel, the asterisk 

shall be followed by the following 

statement: 

See [Back, Top, Side] panel for details. 

(ii) For purposes of this paragraph (b), 

the encircled capital letter ‘‘E’’ shall be 

clearly and conspicuously disclosed in 

color-contrasting ink on the label of any 

covered product that is a general service 

fluorescent lamp and will be deemed 

‘‘conspicuous,’’ in terms of size, if it 

appears in typeface at least as large as 

either the manufacturer’s name or logo 

or another logo disclosed on the label, 

such as the ‘‘UL’’ or ‘‘ETL’’ logos, 

whichever is larger. 

(3)(i) A manufacturer or private 

labeler who distributes general service 

fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent 

lamps, or general service incandescent 

lamps (including incandescent reflector 

lamps) without labels attached to the 

lamps or without labels on individual 

retail-sale packaging for one or more 

lamps may meet the disclosure 

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) of this section by making the 

required disclosures, in the manner and 

form required by those paragraphs, on 

the bulk shipping cartons that are to be 

used to display the lamps for retail sale. 

(ii) Instead of labeling any covered 

product that is a general service 

fluorescent lamp with the encircled ‘‘E’’

and with the statement described in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section, a 

manufacturer or private labeler who 

would not otherwise put a label on such 

a lamp may meet the disclosure 

requirements of that paragraph by 

permanently marking the lamp clearly 

and conspicuously with the encircled 

‘‘E’’. 

(4) Any manufacturer or private 

labeler who makes any representation 

on a label of any covered product that 

is a general service fluorescent lamp, 

medium base compact fluorescent lamp, 

or general service incandescent lamp 

(including an incandescent reflector 

lamp), regarding the cost of operation of 

such lamp shall clearly and 

conspicuously disclose in close 

proximity to such representation the 

assumptions upon which it is based, 

including, e.g., purchase price, unit cost 

of electricity, hours of use, patterns of 

use. 

(5) Any cartons in which any covered 

products that are general service 

fluorescent lamps, medium base 

compact fluorescent lamps, or general 

service incandescent lamps (including 

incandescent reflector lamps), are 

shipped within the United States or 

imported into the United States shall 

disclose clearly and conspicuously the 

following statement: 

These lamps comply with Federal energy 

efficiency labeling requirements. 

11. Section 305.16 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.16 Labeling and Marking 

Requirements for Plumbing Products. 

(a) Showerheads and Faucets. 

Showerheads and faucets shall be 

marked and labeled as follows: 

(1) Each showerhead and flow 

restricting or controlling spout end 

device shall bear a permanent legible 

marking indicating the flow rate, 

expressed in gallons per minute (gpm) 

or gallons per cycle (gpc), and the flow 

rate value shall be the actual flow rate 

or the maximum flow rate specified by 

the standards established in subsection 

(j) of section 325 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(j). Except where impractical due to 

the size of the fitting, each flow rate 

disclosure shall also be given in liters 

per minute (L/min) or liters per cycle 

(L/cycle). For purposes of this section, 

the marking indicating the flow rate will 

be deemed ‘‘legible,’’ in terms of 

placement, if it is located in close 

proximity to the manufacturer’s 

identification marking. 

(2) Each showerhead and faucet shall 

bear a permanent legible marking to 

identify the manufacturer. This marking 

shall be the trade name, trademark, or 

other mark known to identify the 

manufacturer. Such marking shall be 

located where it can be seen after 

installation. 

(3) Each showerhead and faucet shall 

be marked ‘‘A112.18.1M’’ to 

demonstrate compliance with the 

applicable ASME standard. The marking 

shall be by means of either a permanent 

mark on the product, a label on the 

product, or a tag attached to the 

product. 

(4) The package for each showerhead 

and faucet shall disclose the 

manufacturer’s name and the model 

number. 

(5) The package or any label attached 

to the package for each showerhead or 

faucet shall contain at least the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6865 

following: ‘‘A112.18.1M’’ and the flow 

rate expressed in gallons per minute 

(gpm) or gallons per cycle (gpc), and the 

flow rate value shall be the actual flow 

rate or the maximum flow rate specified 

by the standards established in 

subsection (j) of section 325 of the Act, 

42 U.S.C. 6295(j). Each flow rate 

disclosure shall also be given in liters 

per minute (L/min) or liters per cycle 

(L/cycle). 

(b) Water Closets and Urinals. Water 

closets and urinals shall be marked and 

labeled as follows: 

(1) Each such fixture (and flushometer 

valve associated with such fixture) shall 

bear a permanent legible marking 

indicating the flow rate, expressed in 

gallons per flush (gpf), and the water 

use value shall be the actual water use 

or the maximum water use specified by 

the standards established in subsection 

(k) of section 325 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 

6295(k). Except where impractical due 

to the size of the fixture, each flow rate 

disclosure shall also be given in liters 

per flush (Lpf). For purposes of this 

section, the marking indicating the flow 

rate will be deemed ‘‘legible,’’ in terms 

of placement, if it is located in close 

proximity to the manufacturer’s 

identification marking. 

(2) Each water closet (and each 

component of the water closet if the 

fixture is comprised of two or more 

components) and urinal shall be marked 

with the manufacturer’s name or 

trademark or, in the case of private 

labeling, the name or registered 

trademark of the customer for whom the 

unit was manufactured. This mark shall 

be legible, readily identified, and 

applied so as to be permanent. The mark 

shall be located so as to be visible after 

the fixture is installed, except for 

fixtures built into or for a counter or 

cabinet. 

(3) Each water closet (and each 

component of the water closet if the 

fixture is comprised of two or more 

components) and urinal shall be marked 

at a location determined by the 

manufacturer with the designation 

‘‘ASME A112.19.2M’’ to signify 

compliance with the applicable 

standard. This mark need not be 

permanent, but shall be visible after 

installation. 

(4) The package, and any labeling 

attached to the package, for each water 

closet and urinal shall disclose the flow 

rate, expressed in gallons per flush (gpf), 

and the water use value shall be the 

actual water use or the maximum water 

use specified by the standards 

established in subsection (k) of section 

325 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 6295(k). Each 

flow rate disclosure shall also be given 

in liters per flush (Lpf). 

(5) With respect to any gravity tanktype white 2-piece toilet offered for sale 

or sold before January 1, 1997, which 

has a water use greater than 1.6 gallons 

per flush (gpf), any printed matter 

distributed or displayed in connection 

with such product (including packaging 

and point-of-sale material, catalog 

material, and print advertising) shall 

include, in a conspicuous manner, the 

words ‘‘For Commercial Use Only.’’

(c) Annual Operating Cost Claims for 

Covered Plumbing Products. Until such 

time as the Commission has prescribed 

a format and manner of display for 

labels conveying estimated annual 

operating costs of covered showerheads, 

faucets, water closets, and urinals or 

ranges of estimated annual operating 

costs for the types or classes of such 

plumbing products, the Act prohibits 

manufacturers from making such 

representations on the labels of such 

covered products. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(8). 

If, before the Commission has 

prescribed such a format and manner of 

display for labels of such products, a 

manufacturer elects to provide for any 

such product a label conveying such a 

claim, it shall submit the proposed 

claim to the Commission so that a 

format and manner of display for a label 

may be prescribed. 

12. Section 305.11 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 305.11 Labeling for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, 

clothes washers, water heaters, room air 

conditioners, and pool heaters. 

(a) Layout. All energy labels for 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, 

water heaters, pool heaters, and room 

air conditioners 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.). Copy is to be set 

between 27 picas and 29 picas and copy 

page should be centered (right to left 

and top to bottom). Depth is variable but 

should follow closely the prototype 

labels appearing at the end of this part 

illustrating the basis layout. All 

positioning, spacing, type sizes and line 

widths should be similar to and 

consistent with the prototype and 

sample labels in Appendix I. 

(b) Type style and setting. The Arial 

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. 

Generally, text must be set flush left 

with two points leading except where 

otherwise indicated. 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 Types— The labels must be 

affixed to the product in the form of an 

adhesive label or a hang tag. 

(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, but should 

be applied with an adhesive with an 

adhesion capacity sufficient to prevent 

their dislodgment during normal 

handling throughout the chain of 

distribution to the retailer or consumer. 

The paper stock for pressure-sensitive or 

other adhesive labels shall have a basic 

weight of not less than 58 pounds per 

500 sheets (25′′ × 38′′) or equivalent, 

exclusive of the release liner and 

adhesive. A minimum peel adhesion 

capacity for the adhesive of 12 ounces 

per square inch is suggested, but not 

required if the adhesive can otherwise 

meet the above standard. 

(2) Hang tags. Labels may be affixed 

to the product in the form of a hang tag 

using string or similar material. The 

paper stock for hang tags shall have a 

basic weight of not less than 110 pounds 

per 500 sheets (251⁄2′′ × 301⁄2′′ index). 

When materials are used to attach the 

hang tags to appliance products, the 

materials shall be of sufficient strength 

to insure 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. 

(e) Placement—(1) Adhesive labels: 

Manufacturers shall affix adhesive 

labels to the covered products in such 

a position that it is easily read by a 

consumer examining the product. The 

label should be generally located on the 

upper-right-front corner of the product’s 

front exterior. However, some other 

prominent location may be used as long 

as the label will not become dislodged 

during normal handling throughout the 

chain of distribution to the retailer or 

consumer. The top of the label should 

not exceed 74 inches from the base of 

taller products. 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

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 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. 

(f) Label Content for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers, 

dishwashers, clothes washers, water 

heaters, room air conditioners, and pool 

heaters—(1) Headlines and texts, as 

illustrated in the Prototype Labels in 

Appendix I to this Part. 

(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 § 305.7. For 

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 

freezers, the capacity provided on the 

label shall be the model’s total 

refrigerated volume (VT) as determined 

in accordance § 305.7. 

(5) Estimated annual operating costs 

for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 

freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, 

room air conditioners, pool heaters, and 

water heaters are as determined in 

accordance with § 305.5 and Appendix 

H to this Part. 

(6) Ranges of comparability for 

estimated annual operating costs, as 

applicable, are found in the appropriate 

appendices accompanying this part. 

(7) For refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, the range of 

comparability, the following statements 

shall be placed immediately below the 

range as illustrated in the sample labels 

in Appendix I: 

(i) For models covered under 

Appendix A1, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost. 

(ii) For models covered under 

Appendix A2, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Manual Defrost. 

(iii) For models covered under 

Appendix A3, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Partial Automatic Defrost. 

(iv) For models covered under 

Appendix A4, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost, Top-Mounted 

Freezer, and without Through-the-door 

Ice. 

(v) For models covered under 

Appendix A5, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost, Side-Mounted 

Freezer, and without Through-the-door 

Ice. 

(vi) For models covered under 

Appendix A6, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost, BottomMounted Freezer, and without Throughthe-door Ice. 

(vii) For models covered under 

Appendix A7, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost, BottomMounted Freezer, and with Throughthe-door Ice. 

(viii) For models covered under 

Appendix A8, the statement shall read: 

Range for models of similar capacity 

with Automatic Defrost, Side-Mounted 

Freezer, and with Through-the-door Ice. 

(ix) For models covered under 

Appendix B1, the statement shall read: 

Range for upright freezer models of 

similar capacity with Manual Defrost. 

(x) For models covered under 

Appendix B3, the statement shall read: 

Range for upright freezer models of 

similar capacity with Automatic Defrost. 

(xi) For models covered under 

Appendix B3, the statement shall read: 

Range for chest and other freezer 

models of similar capacity. 

(8) Placement of the labeled product 

on the scale shall be proportionate to 

the lowest and highest estimated annual 

operating costs. 

(9) Labels must contain the model’s 

estimated annual energy consumption 

or energy efficiency rating as 

determined in accordance with § 305.5. 

(10) Labels must contain a statement 

explaining information on the label as 

illustrated in the prototype labels in 

Appendix I. 

(i) For refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, the statement will 

read as follows (fill in the blanks with 

the appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the year, and the energy 

cost figures): 

Size, door attributes, and ice features 

affect energy use—so other 

[refrigerators/freezers] may have lower 

or higher operating costs. Your actual 

operating costs will depend on your 

local utility rates and how you use this 

product. The estimated operating cost is 

based on a [Year] national average cost 

of [$ ll per kWh, therm, or gallon] for 

electricity. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(ii) For room air conditioners and 

water heaters, the statement will read as 

follows (fill in the blanks with the 

appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the year, and the energy 

cost figures): 

Your actual operating costs will 

depend on your local utility rates and 

how you use this product. The estimated 

operating cost is based on a [Year] 

national average cost of [$ ll per 

kWh, therm, or gallon] for [electricity, 

natural gas, propane, or oil]. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(iii) For clothes washers and 

dishwashers, the statement will read as 

follows (fill in the blanks with the 

appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the number of loads per 

week, the year, and the energy cost 

figures): 

Based on [4 washloads a week for 

dishwashers, or 8 washloads a week for 

clothes washers] a week. Your actual 

operating costs will depend on your 

local utility rates and how you use this 

product. The estimated operating cost is 

based on a [Year] national average cost 

of $ ll per kWh for electricity and $ 

ll per therm for natural gas. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(iv) For pool heaters, the statement 

will read as follows (fill in the blanks 

with the appropriate appliance name, 

the operating cost, the year, and the 

energy cost figures): 

The Thermal Efficiency (as expressed 

by a percent) is the measure of energy 

efficiency for pool heaters. Only pool 

heaters fueled by [natural gas/oil] 

305.yare used in this scale. Your actual 

operating costs will depend on your 

local utility rates and how you use this 

product. The estimated operating cost is 

based on a [Year] national average cost 

of [$ ll per kWh, therm, or gallon] for 

[natural gas or oil]. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(11) The following statement shall 

appear at the bottom of the label: 

Federal law prohibits removal of this 

label before consumer purchase. 

(12) No marks or information other 

than that specified in this part shall 

appear on or directly adjoining this 

label except that: 

(i) A part or publication number 

identification may be included on this 

label, as desired by the manufacturer. If 

a manufacturer elects to use a part or 

publication number, it must appear in 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6867 

the lower right-hand corner of the label 

and be set in 6-point type or smaller. 

(ii) The energy use disclosure labels 

required by the governments of Canada 

or Mexico may appear directly adjoining 

this label, as desired by the 

manufacturer. 

(iii) The manufacturer may include 

the ENERGY STAR logo on the bottom 

right corner of the label for qualified 

products. The logo must be no larger 

than 1 inch by 1 inch. Only 

manufacturers that have signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding with 

DOE or EPA may add the ENERGY 

STAR logo to labels on qualifying 

covered products; such manufacturers 

may add the ENERGY STAR logo to 

labels only on those covered products 

that are contemplated by the 

Memorandum of Understanding. 

13. Section 305.12 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 305.12 Marking Requirements for Central 

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. 

(a) Central air conditioners and heat 

pumps covered by this part must be 

marked permanently with the model 

number, the Seasonal Energy Efficiency 

Ratio for the model’s cooling function, 

if applicable, and the Heating Seasonal 

Performance Factor (HSPF) for the 

model’s heating function, if applicable. 

The marking must be permanent, 

legible, and placed on the outside 

surface of the product. 

(b) For the model’s cooling function, 

the seasonal energy efficiency ratio shall 

be determined in accordance with 

§ 305.5. For the heating function, the 

heating seasonal performance factor 

shall be calculated for heating Region IV 

for the standardized design heating 

requirement nearest the capacity 

measured in the High Temperature Test 

in accordance with § 305.5. In addition, 

the energy efficiency rating(s) for split 

system condenser-evaporator coil 

combinations shall be either: 

(1) The energy efficiency rating of the 

condenser-evaporator coil combination 

that is the particular manufacturer’s 

most commonly sold combination for 

that condenser model; or 

(2) The energy efficiency rating of the 

actual condenser-evaporator coil 

combination comprising the system to 

which the label is to be attached. 

14. Section 305.13 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.13 Marking Requirements for 

Furnaces. 

(a) Furnaces (including boilers) 

covered by this part must be marked 

permanently with the model number, 

and the model’s Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency (AFUE) determined in 

accordance with § 305.5. The marking 

must be permanent, legible, and placed 

on the outside surface of the product. 

(b) Manufacturers of boilers shipped 

with more than one input nozzle to be 

installed in the field must mark such 

boilers with the AFUE of the system 

when it is set up with the nozzle that 

results in the lowest annual fuel 

utilization efficiency rating. 

(c) Manufacturers that ship out boilers 

that may be set up as either steam or hot 

water units must mark the boilers with 

the AFUE rating derived by conducting 

the required test on the boiler as a hot 

water unit. 

15. Section 30.14 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 305.14 Energy Information Disclosures 

for Heating and Cooling Equipment 

(a) Required Information: 

Manufacturers of central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, and furnaces 

(including boilers) must provide energy 

information about the equipment they 

sell to distributors and retailers, 

including contractors. This information 

can be provided through means such as 

fact sheets, product brochures, and 

directories. All required information 

must be disclosed clearly and 

conspicuously. The information must 

include: 

(1) Name of manufacturer or private 

labeler [in the case of a corporation, the 

name shall 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.] 

(2) Trade name (if different from 

manufacturer); 

(3) Model number(s) (given by the 

manufacturer or private labeler); 

(4) Capacity or size as determined in 

accordance with § 305.7; 

(5) Energy efficiency rating as 

determined in accordance with § 305.5. 

(6) A statement that the energy 

efficiency ratings are based on U.S. 

Government standard tests. 

(7) For central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, the required information 

must disclose efficiency ratings for the 

‘‘most common’’ condenser-evaporator 

coil combinations. The statement 

should be made in one of the following 

three ways: 

(i) For information disclosing the 

seasonal energy efficiency ratio for 

cooling, the statement should read: 

This energy rating is based on U.S. 

Government standard tests of this 

condenser model combined with the 

most common coil. The rating may vary 

slightly with different coils. 

(ii) For information disclosing both 

the seasonal energy efficiency ratio for 

cooling and the heating seasonal 

performance factor for heating, the 

statement should read: 

This energy rating is based on U.S. 

Government standard tests of this 

condenser model combined with the 

most common coil. The rating will vary 

slightly with different coils and in 

different geographic regions. 

(iii) For information disclosing the 

heating seasonal performance factor for 

heating, the statement should read: 

This energy rating is based on U.S. 

Government standard tests of this 

condenser model combined with the 

most common coil. The rating will vary 

slightly with different coils and in 

different geographic regions. 

(8) Information for central air 

conditioners disclosing the efficiency 

ratings for specific condenser/coil 

combinations does not have to contain 

any of the above three statements. 

Instead, it must contain a general 

disclosure that the energy costs and 

efficiency ratings are based on U.S. 

Government tests. 

(b) Distribution. (A) Manufacturers 

and private labelers must give 

distributors and retailers, including 

assemblers, the information covered 

under section 305.14(a) for the central 

air conditioners, heat pumps, and 

furnaces (including boilers) they sell to 

them. This information may be provided 

in paper or electronic form (including 

Internet-based access). Distributors must 

give this information to retailers, 

including assemblers, they supply. 

(B) Retailers, including assemblers, 

who sell furnaces (including boilers), 

central air conditioners, or heat pumps 

to consumers must have the required 

information for the furnaces and central 

air conditioners they sell. They must 

make the information available to their 

customers. The required information 

may be made available to customers in 

any manner, as long as customers are 

likely to notice them. For example, it 

can be available in a display, where 

customers can take copies of them. It 

can be kept in a binder or made 

available electronically at a counter or 

service desk, with a sign telling 

customers where the required 

information is. 

(C) Retailers, including assemblers, 

who negotiate or make sales at a place 

other than their regular places of 

business must show the required 

information to their customers and let 

them read the fact information before 

they agree to purchase the product. If 

the information is Internet-based, 

retailers, including assemblers, who 

negotiate or make sales at a place other 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

than their regular places of business, 

may choose to provide customers with 

instructions to access such information 

in lieu of showing them a paper version 

of the information. Retailers who choose 

to use the Internet for the required 

information, must let customers read 

such information before the customers 

agree to purchase the product. 

16. In newly designated § 305.20, the 

heading and paragraph (a) are revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 305.20 Paper Catalogs and Web sites. 

(a) Any manufacturer, distributor, 

retailer, or private labeler who 

advertises in a catalog, a covered 

product (except fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, general service fluorescent 

lamps, medium base compact 

fluorescent lamps, general service 

incandescent lamps including 

incandescent reflector lamps, 

showerheads, faucets, water closets or 

urinals) shall include in such catalog 

the following information required to be 

disclosed on the label: 

(1) The capacity of the model on each 

page that lists the covered product. 

(2) The estimated annual operating 

costs for refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, freezers, clothes washers, 

dishwashers, room air conditioners, 

pool heaters, and water heaters as 

determined in accordance with § 305.5 

on each page that lists the covered 

product. 

(3) A statement conspicuously placed 

in the catalog explaining the 

information as follows: 

(i) For refrigerators, refrigeratorfreezers, and freezers, the statement will 

read as follows (fill in the blanks with 

the appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the year, and the energy 

cost figures): 

Your actual operating costs will 

depend on your local utility rates and 

how you use this product. The estimated 

operating cost is based on a [Year] 

national average cost of [$ll per kWh, 

therm, or gallon] for electricity. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(ii) For room air conditioners and 

water heaters, the statement will read as 

follows (fill in the blanks with the 

appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the year, and the energy 

cost figures): 

Your actual operating costs will 

depend on your local utility rates and 

how you use this product. The estimated 

operating cost is based on a [Year] 

national average cost of [$ll per kWh, 

therm, or gallon] for [electricity, natural 

gas, propane, or oil]. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(iii) For clothes washers and 

dishwashers, the statement will read as 

follows (fill in the blanks with the 

appropriate appliance name, the 

operating cost, the number of loads per 

week, the year, and the energy cost 

figures): 

Based on [4 washloads a week for 

dishwashers, or 8 washloads a week for 

clothes washers] a week. Your actual 

operating costs will depend on your 

local utility rates and how you use this 

product. The estimated operating cost is 

based on a [Year] national average cost 

of $ll per kWh for electricity and 

$ll per therm for natural gas. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(iv) For pool heaters, the statement 

will read as follows (fill in the blanks 

with the appropriate appliance name, 

the operating cost, the year, and the 

energy cost figures): 

The Thermal Efficiency (as expressed 

by a percent) is the measure of energy 

efficiency for pool heaters. Only pool 

heaters fueled by [natural gas/oil] are 

used in this scale. Your actual operating 

costs will depend on your local utility 

rates and how you use this product. The 

estimated operating cost is based on a 

[Year] national average cost of [$ll 

per kWh, therm, or gallon] for [natural 

gas or oil]. 

For more information, visit 

www.ftc.gov/appliances. 

(4) The energy efficiency ratings for 

central air conditioners and furnaces on 

each page that lists the covered product. 

* * * * * 

§ 305.25 Exemptions. [Removed and 

Reserved] 

17. The text of newly designated 

§ 305.25 is removed and reserved. 

18. Appendix A1 to part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A1 to Part 305—Refrigerators 

With Automatic Defrost 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs (dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 2.5 ...............................................................................................................................................

2.5 to 4.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

4.5 to 6.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

6.5 to 8.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

8.5 to 10.4 ....................................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

19. Appendix A2 to part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A2 to Part 305—Refrigerators 

and Refrigerator-Freezers With Manual 

Defrost 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6869 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 2.5 ...............................................................................................................................................

2.5 to 4.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

4.5 to 6.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

6.5 to 8.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

8.5 to 10.4 ....................................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

20. Appendix A3 to part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A3 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Partial Automatic 

Defrost 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

21. Appendix A4 to part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A4 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Automatic Defrost With 

Top-Mounted Freezer Without 

Through-the-Door Ice Service 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs (dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

RANGE INFORMATION—Continued 

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs (dollars/year) 

Low High 

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

22. Appendix A5 to Part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A5 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Automatic Defrost With 

Side-Mounted Freezer Without 

Through-the-Door Ice Service 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

23. Appendix A6 to Part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A6 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Automatic Defrost With 

Bottom-Mounted Freezer Without 

Through-The-Door Ice Service 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

24. Appendix A7 to Part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A7 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Automatic Defrost With 

Top-Mounted Freezer With ThroughThe-Door Ice Service Range 

Information 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6871 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

25. Appendix A8 to Part 305 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Appendix A8 to Part 305—RefrigeratorFreezers With Automatic Defrost With 

Side-Mounted Freezer With Throughthe-Door Ice Service 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 10.5 .............................................................................................................................................

10.5 to 12.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

12.5 to 14.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

14.5 to 16.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

16.5 to 18.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

18.5 to 20.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

20.5 to 22.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

22.5 to 24.4. .................................................................................................................................................

24.5 to 26.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

26.5 to 28.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

28.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

26. Appendix B1 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B1 to Part 305—Upright 

Freezers With Manual Defrost 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 5.5 ...............................................................................................................................................

5.5 to 7.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

7.5 to 9.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

9.5 to 11.4 ....................................................................................................................................................

11.5 to 13.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

13.5 to 15.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

15.5 to 17.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

17.5 to 19.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

19.5 to 21.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

21.5 to 23.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

23.5 to 25.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

25.5 to 27.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

27.5 to 29.4 ..................................................................................................................................................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

RANGE INFORMATION—Continued 

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

29.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

27. Appendix B2 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B2 to Part 305—Upright 

Freezers With Automatic Defrost 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 5.5 ...............................................................................................................................................

5.5 to 7.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

7.5 to 9.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

9.5 to 11.4 ....................................................................................................................................................

11.5 to 13.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

13.5 to 15.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

15.5 to 17.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

17.5 to 19.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

19.5 to 21.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

21.5 to 23.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

23.5 to 25.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

25.5 to 27.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

27.5 to 29.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

29.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

28. Appendix B3 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix B3 to Part 305—Chest 

Freezers and All Other Freezers 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated total refrigerated volume in cubic feet 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Less than 5.5 ...............................................................................................................................................

5.5 to 7.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

7.5 to 9.4 ......................................................................................................................................................

9.5 to 11.4 ....................................................................................................................................................

11.5 to 13.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

13.5 to 15.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

15.5 to 17.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

17.5 to 19.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

19.5 to 21.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

21.5 to 23.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

23.5 to 25.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

25.5 to 27.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

27.5 to 29.4 ..................................................................................................................................................

29.5 and over ...............................................................................................................................................

(*) No data submitted for units meeting the Department of Energy’s Energy Conservation Standards effective July 1, 2001. 

29. Appendix C1 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix C1 to Part 305—Compact 

Dishwashers 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6873 

RANGE INFORMATION

[‘‘Compact’’ includes countertop dishwasher models with a capacity of fewer than eight (8) place settings. Place settings shall be in accordance 

with appendix C to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. Load patterns shall conform to the operating normal for the model being tested.]

Capacity 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Compact 

30. Appendix C2 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix C2 to Part 305—Standard 

Dishwashers 

RANGE INFORMATION

[‘‘Standard’’ includes dishwasher models with a capacity of eight (8) or more place settings. Place settings shall be in accordance with appendix 

C to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B. Load patterns shall conform to the operating normal for the model being tested.] 

Capacity 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Compact 

31. Appendices D1 through D5 to Part 

305 are revised to read as follows: 

Appendix D1 to Part 305—Water 

Heaters—Gas 

RANGE INFORMATION

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating Natural gas ($/year) Propane ($/year) 

Low High Low High 

Less than 21 ....................................................................................................

21 to 24 ............................................................................................................

25 to 29 ............................................................................................................

30 to 34 ............................................................................................................

35 to 40 ............................................................................................................

41 to 47 ............................................................................................................

48 to 55 ............................................................................................................

56 to 64 ............................................................................................................

65 to 74 ............................................................................................................

75 to 86 ............................................................................................................

87 to 99 ............................................................................................................

100 to 114 ........................................................................................................

115 to 131 ........................................................................................................

Over 131 ..........................................................................................................

*No data submitted. 

Appendix D2 to Part 305—Water 

Heaters—Electric 

RANGE INFORMATION

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating 

Low High 

Less than 21 ................................................................................................................................................

21 to 24 ........................................................................................................................................................

25 to 29 ........................................................................................................................................................

30 to 34 ........................................................................................................................................................

35 to 40 ........................................................................................................................................................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

RANGE INFORMATION—Continued 

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating 

Low High 

41 to 47 ........................................................................................................................................................

48 to 55 ........................................................................................................................................................

56 to 64 ........................................................................................................................................................

65 to 74 ........................................................................................................................................................

75 to 86 ........................................................................................................................................................

87 to 99 ........................................................................................................................................................

100 to 114 ....................................................................................................................................................

115 to 131 ....................................................................................................................................................

Over 131 ......................................................................................................................................................

*No data submitted. 

Appendix D3 to Part 305—Water 

Heaters—Oil 

RANGE INFORMATION

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating 

Low High 

Less than 65 ................................................................................................................................................

65 to 74 ........................................................................................................................................................

75 to 86 ........................................................................................................................................................

87 to 99 ........................................................................................................................................................

100 to 114 ....................................................................................................................................................

115 to 131 ....................................................................................................................................................

Over 131 ......................................................................................................................................................

*No data submitted. 

Appendix D4 to Part 305—Water 

Heaters—Instantaneous—Gas 

RANGE INFORMATION

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating Natural gas ($/year) Propane ($/year) 

Low High Low High 

Under 1.00 .......................................................................................................

1.00 to 2.00 ......................................................................................................

2.01 to 3.00 ......................................................................................................

Over 3.00 .........................................................................................................

*No data submitted. 

Appendix D5 to Part 305—Water 

Heaters—Heat Pump 

RANGE INFORMATION

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating 

Low High 

Less than 21 ................................................................................................................................................

21 to 24 ........................................................................................................................................................

25 to 29 ........................................................................................................................................................

30 to 34 ........................................................................................................................................................


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6875 

RANGE INFORMATION—Continued 

Capacity Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

First hour rating 

Low High 

35 to 40 ........................................................................................................................................................

41 to 47 ........................................................................................................................................................

48 to 55 ........................................................................................................................................................

56 to 64 ........................................................................................................................................................

65 to 74 ........................................................................................................................................................

75 to 86 ........................................................................................................................................................

87 to 99 ........................................................................................................................................................

100 to 114 ....................................................................................................................................................

115 to 131 ....................................................................................................................................................

Over 131 ......................................................................................................................................................

*No data submitted. 

32. Appendix E to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix E to Part 305—Room Air 

Conditioners 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated cooling capacity in Btu’s/yr 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Without Reverse Cycle and with Louvered Sides: 

Less than 6,000 Btu .............................................................................................................................

6,000 to 7,999 Btu ................................................................................................................................

8,000 to 13,999 Btu ..............................................................................................................................

14,000 to 19,999 Btu ............................................................................................................................

20,000 and more Btu ............................................................................................................................

Without Reverse Cycle and without Louvered Sides: 

Less than 6,000 Btu .............................................................................................................................

6,000 to 7,999 ......................................................................................................................................

8,000 to 13,999 Btu ..............................................................................................................................

14,000 to 19,999 Btu ............................................................................................................................

20,000 and more Btu ............................................................................................................................

With Reverse Cycle and with Louvered Sides.

With Reverse Cycle, without Louvered Sides .............................................................................................

*No data submitted for units meeting Federal Minimum Efficiency Standards effective October 1, 2000. 

33. Appendix F1 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix F1 to Part 305—Standard 

Clothes Washers 

RANGE INFORMATION

[‘‘Standard’’ includes all household clothes washers with a tub capacity of 1.6 cu. ft. or more.] 

Capacity 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Standard 

34. Appendix F2 to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix F2 to Part 305—Compact 

Clothes Washers 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
6876 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

RANGE INFORMATION

[‘‘Compact’’ includes all household clothes washers with a tub capacity of less than 1.6 cu. ft.] 

Capacity 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs 

(dollars/year) 

Low High 

Compact 

Appendices G1 through G8, H, and I to 

Part 305 [Removed] 

35. Appendices G1 through G8, H, 

and I to Part 305 are removed. 

Appendices J1 and J2 to Part 305 

[Redesignated as G1 and G2] 

36. Appendices J1 and J2 to Part 305 

are redesignated as Appendices G1 and 

G2 and revised to read as follows: 

Appendix G1 to Part 305—Pool 

Heaters—Gas 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated 

heating capacities 

Range of estimated annual operating costs 

(dollars/year) 

Natural gas Propane 

Low High Low High 

All capacities 

Appendix G2 to Part 305—Pool 

Heaters—Oil 

RANGE INFORMATION

Manufacturer’s rated heating capacities 

Range of estimated annual operating 

costs (dollars/year) 

Low High 

All capacities 

37. Appendix H to Part 305 is revised 

to read as follows: 

Appendix H to Part 305—

Representative Average Unit Energy 

Costs 

This Table contains the representative unit 

energy costs that must be utilized to calculate 

operating cost disclosures required under 

sections 305.11, 305.14, and 305.20. This 

Table is based on information published by 

the U.S. Department of Energy in 2007. 

Representative average unit costs of energy for five residential energy sources 

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

procedure 

Dollars per 

million Btu 1

Electricity .................................................................................. ____¢/kWh 2 3 .......................... $_.__/kWh .............................. $__.__ 

Natural Gas .............................................................................. $_.__/therm 4 .......................... $_.____/Btu ............................. $__.__ 

$_.__/MCF 5 6.

No. 2 heating oil ...................................................................... $_.__/gallon 7 .......................... $_.______/Btu ......................... $__.__ 

Propane ................................................................................... $_.__/gallon 8 .......................... $_.______/Btu ......................... $__.__ 

Kerosene ................................................................................. $_.__/gallon 9 .......................... $_.______/Btu ......................... $__.__ 

1Btu stands for British thermal unit. 

2 kWh stands for kiloWatt hour. 

3 1 kWh = 3,412 Btu. 

4 1 therm = 100,000 Btu. Natural gas prices include taxes. 

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 1,031 Btu. 

7For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of No. 2 heating oil has an energy equivalence of 138,690 Btu. 

8For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of liquid propane has an energy equivalence of 91,333 Btu. 

9For the purposes of this table, 1 gallon of kerosene has an energy equivalence of 135,000 Btu. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6877 

Appendix L [Redesignated as Appendix 

I] 

38. Appendix L is redesignated as 

Appendix I. 

39. Prototype label 1 and Sample 

labels 1 and 2 are revised and Prototype 

labels 2 through 5 and Sample labels 3 

through 11 in newly designated 

Appendix I are removed to read as 

follows: 

Appendix I to Part 305—Sample Labels 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3EP13FE07.002</GPH>
6878 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3EP13FE07.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 29 / Tuesday, February 13, 2007 / Proposed Rules 6879 

* * * * * 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 07–613 Filed 2–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL3EP13FE07.004</GPH>