[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 117 (Wednesday, June 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34642-34668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14058]



16 CFR Part 305

RIN 3084-AB03

Energy Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.


SUMMARY: As part of its regulatory review of the Energy Labeling Rule, 
the Federal Trade Commission proposes to expand coverage of the 
Lighting Facts label, change the current label categories for 
refrigerators, revise the ceiling fan label design, and require room 
air conditioner labels on packaging instead of the units themselves.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by 
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Supplementary Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking on Energy Labeling Rule Regulatory Review (16 
CFR Part 305) (Project No. R611004)'' on your comment, and file your 
comment online at https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/energyguidereview 
by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to 
file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver 
your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office 
of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, 
Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202)

[[Page 34643]]

326-2889, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 


I. Background

    In a March 15, 2012 Federal Register Notice (77 FR 15298) (``Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking'' or ``NPRM''), the Federal Trade Commission 
(``FTC'' or ``Commission'') initiated a review of the Energy Labeling 
Rule seeking comment on several proposed improvements to the FTC's 
labeling requirements.\1\ On January 10, 2013, the Commission issued 
final amendments to streamline data reporting and to improve online 
disclosures as proposed in the March 2012 NPRM.\2\ This NPRM also 
proposed new labels to help consumers comparison shop for refrigerators 
and clothes washers after the implementation of upcoming changes to the 
Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures. The Commission issued final 
amendments for those issues, as well as updates to comparability 
ranges, on July 23, 2013 (78 FR 43974).\3\

    \1\ The comments received in response to the March 2012 
regulatory review notice can be found at http://ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelamend/index.shtm.
    \2\ On January 9, 2013 (78 FR 1779), the Commission published a 
proposed rule seeking comment on updated ranges of comparability and 
unit energy cost figures for many EnergyGuide labels.
    \3\ Additional related proceedings are discussed in this 

II. Remaining Regulatory Review Issues

    This document addresses the remaining issues raised by the 
Commission or commenters during this regulatory review proceeding and 
proposes related amendments. These issues include expanded light bulb 
label coverage, an online label database, more durable labels for 
appliances, room and portable air conditioner box labels, ceiling fan 
labels, consolidated refrigerator ranges, updates to furnace labels, QR 
(``Quick Response'') Codes, bilingual issues, television label updates, 
a range revision schedule, retailer responsibility, marketplace Web 
sites, set-top box labeling, clothes dryer labels, and plumbing 
products. After reviewing the comments received in response to this 
document, the Commission will publish final amendments as appropriate.

A. Expanded Light Bulb Labeling

    The Commission proposes requiring the Lighting Facts label for 
decorative and other specialty bulbs that have energy use and light 
output similar to general service bulbs already labeled under the Rule. 
On July 19, 2010 (75 FR 41696), the Commission created a new Lighting 
Facts label for general service light bulbs, which discloses 
information about the bulb's brightness, estimated annual energy cost, 
life, color appearance, and energy use.\4\ The current labeling rules 
cover most general service medium screw base incandescent, compact 
fluorescent, and LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs.\5\ They exclude 
several other common consumer bulbs, such as decorative bulbs (e.g., 
globe and bent-tip decorative bulbs rated 40 watts or fewer), non-
medium screw base bulbs, shatter-resistant bulbs, and vibration service 
bulbs.\6\ In 2011, the Commission proposed labeling for specific bulb 
shapes generally available to consumers and not covered by the labeling 
requirements.\7\ Specifically, the Commission proposed to expand label 
coverage to include all screw-based bulbs and GU-10 and GU-24 pin-based 
bulbs to provide consumers uniform information, such as energy cost, 
brightness, and bulb life, to help them with their lighting decisions.

    \4\ 16 CFR 305.15(b). The Energy Independence and Security Act 
of 2007 (EISA) directed the Commission to examine existing light 
bulb labeling requirements. Public Law 110-140; see 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(2)(D)(iii). EISA amended the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.).
    \5\ 16 CFR 305.3(l).
    \6\ 16 CFR 305.3(l)(2), (n)(3)(ii).
    \7\ 76 FR 45715 (Aug. 1, 2011). The Notice also sought comments 
on bilingual labeling (but did not propose any bilingual 

    Comments: The comments offered conflicting views on the 
proposal.\8\ In support of the proposal, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) (00006-80665) urged expanded coverage for all 
screw-base lamps, certain pin-based lamps, and any lamp (i.e., bulb) 
used as a substitute for general service lamps.\9\ Specifically, it 
recommended new labeling for all screw-based lamps regardless of shape, 
base size, or technology to ensure lamp purchasers receive basic 
information about light output, operating cost, lifetime, power, use, 
and color temperature. It also noted that many of the unlabeled bulbs 
use significant amounts of energy and are available in different 
technologies. For example, some candelabra-based lamps consume up to 60 
watts and frequently appear in fixtures containing five or more 
sockets. In addition, manufacturers offer alternatives to incandescent 
candelabra bulbs in efficient compact-flourescent (CFL) or LED 
versions, which suggests labeling may aid consumers in comparing these 
bulb types across different technologies.\10\ NRDC also supported the 
proposal to require labels for GU-10 and GU-24 pin-based lamps given 
their increasing use in new construction, remodels, and commercial 
spaces. It noted that current packaging for some of these products does 
not disclose light output.

    \8\ The comments can be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/lampcoveragenprm/index.shtm. Unless otherwise stated, comments 
discussed in this section refer to the following: Appliance 
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP) (00008-80686); GE 
Lighting (00005-80686); Lee (00007-80686); Moore 
(00004-80686); National Electrical Manufacturers 
Association (NEMA) (00009-80686); and Natural Resources 
Defense Council (00006-80686).
    \9\ This document uses the terms lamp, light bulb, and bulb 
    \10\ NRDC also recommended that DOE amend the definition of 
general service lamp to clarify that halogen lamps are covered. 
Because the Rule's definition of incandescent lamp (16 CFR 305.3(n)) 
already includes the term ``halogen,'' the Commission is not 
proposing an amendment.

    ASAP, which also supported expanded coverage, focused on labeling 
bulbs commonly used as substitutes for general service lamps.\11\ For 
example, ASAP supported labeling for rough-service and shatter-
resistant lamps because their shape, base, and wattage resemble general 
service incandescent products. ASAP noted that rough-service light 
bulbs (60, 75, and 100 watt versions) often sell for about one dollar 
and shatter-resistant bulbs sell for less than two dollars, which 
increases the likelihood that consumers will purchase such bulbs for 
use as general lighting. Similarly, NRDC urged labels for appliance 
lamps, three-way lamps, and plant lights because these lamps serve as 
``one-for-one replacements'' for inefficient incandescent light bulbs, 
but do not fall under existing federal efficiency standards.\12\

    \11\ Specifically, ASAP explained that converter bases can allow 
substitution of candelabra and intermediate-base lamps for general 
service lamps. The Commission notes that EPCA already prohibits sale 
of adapters designed to ``allow an incandescent lamp that does not 
have a medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or 
lampholder with a medium screw base socket.'' 42 U.S.C. 6302(6).
    \12\ The current labeling requirements already cover three-way 
lamps. See 16 CFR 305.3(l)(1), (n)(3); and 75 FR 41698, n. 13.

    In contrast, industry comments argued that Commission's proposal 
was too broad and would require labels that, in some cases, would 
provide little benefit to consumers. Instead, they urged the Commission 
to consider expanded coverage on a product-by-product basis and only 
impose new requirements if labeling for specific bulb types would aid 
consumer-purchasing decisions. They also urged the Commission to allow 
a smaller version of the label for small packages common for specialty 
bulbs. Finally, these comments opposed the proposal to

[[Page 34644]]

change the definition of ``general service lamp'' as a vehicle to 
expand label coverage.
    The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 
(00009-80665), a lighting industry association, raised 
concerns about the proposal's breadth. NEMA argued that expanded 
coverage would yield little benefit because consumers have minimal 
concern about lumen output and energy use when purchasing many of the 
bulb types included in the Commission's proposal.\13\ In NEMA's view, 
the broad proposal conflicts with the statute's primary focus on 
``general service lamps,'' the most common lamp types that satisfy a 
majority of lighting applications.\14\ For example, according to NEMA, 
intermediate screw base incandescent lamps, unlike ``general service 
lamps,'' \15\ have extremely low sales volume, have few CFL or LED 
alternatives, and appear in unusual locations such as desk lamps, 
appliances, and show cases.

    \13\ NEMA also noted that many such lamps operate on dimmers, 
allowing consumers to reduce their lumen and wattage level to 
provide ambient illumination, thus creating variations in the actual 
energy costs of these products.
    \14\ See e.g., 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14).
    \15\ General service incandescent lamps instead have ``medium'' 
screw bases. See 16 CFR 305.3(n)(3).

    NEMA added that candelabra based lamps are small, decorative bulbs 
with limited space for labeling and that few pin-based lamps (GU-type) 
are sold to residential consumers. It also explained that the proposal 
would cover products with low sales or minor energy use, such as B, BA, 
CA, and G shape lamps that draw fewer than 30 watts or produce fewer 
than 310 lumens; small diameter reflector lamps with few sales (e.g., 
MR-14 lamps); low-wattage night lights (C-7 shape) decorative flame-
shapes with little market presence; and low lumen LEDs.\16\

    \16\ As part of its comments, NEMA included a chart listing 
several types of specialty bulbs detailing their typical use, 
purchasers, substitutes, and sales volume. NEMA detailed objections 
to the inclusion of the following bulb shapes: F(``flame'') lamps 
(constitute less than 1% of the incandescent market and have 
irregular surfaces which prevent direct printing on the bulb 
itself), M-14 lamps (``have essentially no meaningful sales today'' 
according to GE (00005-80665)), C-7 lamps (incandescent 
night lights which use no more than 4 watts), and decorative CA 
lamps (use under 25 watts).

    In addition, GE noted the proposal covered several commercial bulb 
shapes with few, if any, high-efficiency alternatives, such as S-lamps 
and T-lamps used for exit signs, showcases, and appliances. Finally, 
NEMA recommended that the FTC maintain the Rule's current 
exclusions,\17\ which mostly involve products purchased for their 
decorative and aesthetic appeal because consumers do not generally 
consider energy savings when purchasing these products.\18\

    \17\ The current requirements exclude G shape lamps (as defined 
in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) with a diameter of 5 inches or 
more; T shape lamps (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) 
that use not more than 40 watts or have a length of more than 10 
inches; and B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamps (as 
defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or 
less. 16 CFR 305.3(l), (n)(3)(ii)(R)-(T).
    \18\ NEMA noted that EPCA provides a mechanism for DOE to impose 
efficiency standards for specialty lamps, such as rough or vibration 
service lamps, if the sales volumes of these products increase. 42 
U.S.C. 6295.

    Although NEMA raised concerns with the proposal's structure and 
coverage, it acknowledged FTC's authority to consider labeling for 
additional lighting products. Industry comments, from NEMA and GE, 
urged the Commission to use that authority to focus on whether 
additional ``labeling or other disclosures will help consumers in 
making purchasing decisions'' as contemplated by EPCA.\19\ GE added 
that the EPCA calls for disclosures ``necessary to enable consumers to 
select the most energy efficient lamps which meet their requirements.'' 
\20\ Given this general guidance, GE suggested the Commission allow 
voluntary labeling for bulb types that: (1) Have high sales volumes; 
(2) compete with alternative technologies (e.g., CFLs and LED bulbs); 
and (3) consume meaningful amounts of energy. NEMA noted that the 
statutory definitions for lighting products already identify the bulb 
types likely to yield significant energy savings if labeled. In its 
view, lamp products with low lumen levels, with low wattage levels, or 
otherwise designed for specialty applications do not qualify.

    \19\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6).
    \20\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D).

    Both NEMA and GE recommended that the Commission approach any 
expanded coverage on a bulb-by-bulb basis to provide regulatory clarity 
and to ensure that substantial evidence exists for such requirements. 
GE pointed the Commission to a specific set of bulbs as good candidates 
for labeling. It explained that about 95% of the decorative 
incandescent lamp shapes are offered in the G (Globe), CA, B, or BA 
types, which are available in alternative technologies such as CFL or 
LED and feature medium screw, candelabra or intermediate screw bases. 
GE also recommended that the Commission focus on labeling for common 
lamp types rated at 25 or more watts because models below 25 watts do 
not consume enough energy to affect consumer purchasing behavior.
    Industry members also raised concerns about fitting the required 
disclosures on packages and lamps. These comments recommended a smaller 
label and abbreviated content for newly-covered bulbs because many 
specialty lamp types have smaller packages. Specifically, NEMA urged 
the Commission to allow a smaller version of the label, which discloses 
only brightness (average initial lumens), life, and energy usage 
(wattage). NEMA also repeated its earlier proposal to allow the Rule's 
current compressed label for packages up to 48 square inches in size, 
instead of the Rule's current 24 square inch threshold.\21\ In 
addition, NEMA argued that the current requirement that the products be 
marked with mercury and lumen information \22\ is not feasible for many 
of the small specialty lamps. It indicated that marking could interfere 
with some bulbs' aesthetic appeal, damaging their popularity.\23\

    \21\ See 16 CFR 305.15(b)(5). The current Rule's compressed 
label contains the same content as the standard label, but in a 
smaller format. NEMA explains that this compressed label is still 
too large, and thus requests a smaller label.
    \22\ See 16 CFR 305.15(b)(7).
    \23\ NEMA further proposed that the Rule allow manufacturers to 
self-certify and forgo reporting for these products given their low 
energy usage and the fact that neither Congress nor DOE has included 
them in the DOE energy conservation standards program.

    Finally, NEMA and GE strongly opposed the Commission's proposal to 
change the definition of ``general service lamp'' to expand label 
coverage. Because EPCA contains a specific definition for ``general 
service lamp,'' which is used mostly to define the scope of DOE's 
efficiency standards, NEMA warned that the proposed amendment would 
create inconsistencies between FTC and DOE regulations and sow 
confusion. NEMA also argued that the Commission does not have authority 
to amend the statutory definition of ``general service lamp'' because 
EPCA reserves such authority to the Secretary of Energy (42 U.S.C. 
6291(30)(BB)(i)(IV)). NEMA acknowledged that the Commission has 
authority to require labeling for consumer products under 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(6), but argued that, in exercising this power, the Commission 
should not use definitions inconsistent with EPCA.
    Discussion: The Commission revises its proposal to cover specialty 
bulb types with energy use or light output similar to the general 
service bulbs already covered by the Lighting Facts label. This new 
proposal is consistent with EPCA's directive to develop labels that 
help consumers with their

[[Page 34645]]

purchasing decisions.\24\ The proposal sets specific thresholds for 
wattage and light output for bulbs that must bear the label and 
excludes bulbs with shapes or uses not generally sought by typical 
consumers (e.g., mine service bulbs). It includes special marking 
provisions for some bulb types and provides a smaller, single-label 
option for the smaller packages often used for specialty bulbs. For 
consumer light bulbs not covered by the proposed requirements, the 
proposal allows manufacturers to use the Lighting Facts label if they 
follow the Rule's content and format requirements. Finally, to avoid 
confusion, the Commission proposes implementing the expanded coverage 
by adding the term ``specialty consumer lamp'' to the Rule instead of 
amending the Rule's definition of ``general service lamp.''

    \24\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D), (a)(6).

    Under EPCA, the Commission can require labeling for any consumer 
product if such labeling is ``likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.'' \25\ Therefore, the Commission may look beyond 
EPCA's specific lamp definitions, which generally circumscribe the 
coverage for DOE's efficiency standards.\26\ This expansive authority 
is further demonstrated by EPCA's direction that the FTC issue labeling 
requirements that ``enable consumers to select the most energy 
efficient lamps which meet their needs.'' \27\ In addition, without 
specifying bulb coverage, the 2007 EPCA amendments encouraged the 
Commission to revise labels to help consumers ``understand new high-
efficiency lamp products'' and allow them to choose products that meet 
their needs for light output, light quality, and lamp lifetime.\28\

    \25\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(6).
    \26\ 42 U.S.C. 6291(30), 6292(a)(14). Recognizing that labeling 
may be appropriate for some products even in the absence of an 
efficiency standard, the Commission has already used this general 
authority to cover three-way incandescent bulbs and high-efficiency 
LED bulbs. See 75 FR 41698.
    \27\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(i).
    \28\ See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(D)(iii) (the statute also directs 
the Commission to consider additional labeling changes to help 
consumers understand light bulb alternatives).

    Consistent with this statutory direction, the modified proposal 
covers lamp types with wattages and light output similar to currently 
covered general service bulbs. The new labels will provide a means for 
consumers to compare the energy use, brightness, and other attributes 
of different bulb types and technologies commonly available on the 
market. Specifically, the modified labeling proposal applies to bulbs 
that: (1) Are rated at 30 watts or higher or produce 310 lumens or 
more; (2) have a medium, intermediate, candelabra, GU-10, or GU-24 
base; and (3) do not meet the definition of ``general service lamp.'' 
\29\ The Commission proposes these specific criteria because the 30-
watt and 310-lumen thresholds are consistent with Congressionally-
established benchmarks set in EPCA's definition of ``general service 
lamps.'' \30\ This proposal covers common product types likely to 
appear side-by-side on store shelves with general service bulbs.\31\ 
Finally, it covers specialty bulbs that look and operate like 
traditional incandescent bulbs, but are currently excluded from 
coverage, such as vibration-service lamps, rough service lamps, 
appliance lamps, plant light lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps 
(including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp).

    \29\ On December 9, 2013 (78 FR 73737), DOE initiated a 
proceeding to consider whether to expand the current definition of 
``general service lamp.'' The Commission will seek to ensure final 
labeling amendments harmonize with amended DOE definitions.
    \30\ See 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)&(D).
    \31\ The following provides more specific information provided 
in NEMA's comments about the principal bulb types included in the 
proposal, including the bulb's common bases, their typical 
applications, and their general market volume:
    A-Shape:--available in medium and intermediate bases; used in 
residential applications, including ceiling fans; used for 
incandescent rough service and shatter proof bulbs at high wattages;
    B-shape:--decorative ``torpedo'' shaped bulbs used in 
residential applications; available in CFL and LED versions; NEMA 
comments suggest that 40-watt or fewer B-shape lamps account for 
about 7% of the incandescent market;
    BA and CA shape:--bent tip decorative lamps used in residential 
settings; available with medium and candelabra bases; wattages as a 
high as 60; available in incandescent and LED versions; represents 
between 6-7% of the incandescent market according to NEMA comments;
    F-Shape:--decorative flame-shaped bulb; use as much as 40 watts; 
available in CFL and LED versions;
    G-Shape:--often used in residential bathrooms; available in CFL 
and LED versions; according to comments, G16 \1/2\ lamps represent 
2.5% of the incandescent market, G25 lamps represent 5%, and G30 
lamps represent about 0.5%; and
    Spiral shape:--commonly used for CFLs with intermediate screw 
bases and GU-24 pin-based bulbs; increasingly used in new 

    The proposal excludes bulb types for which labeling may not provide 
substantial benefit to consumers, including bulbs that use less than 30 
watts and produce low light output, or bulbs not typically purchased by 
residential consumers. It also specifically excludes uncommon bulb 
shapes, lamp types with little market presence, and bulbs generally 
used for commercial applications. The proposed exclusions are: black 
light lamps, bug lamps, colored lamps, infrared lamps, left-hand thread 
lamps, marine lamps, marine signal service lamps, mine service lamps, 
sign service lamps, silver bowl lamps, showcase lamps, traffic signal 
lamps, G-shape lamps with diameter of 5 inches or more, and C7, M-14, 
P, RP, S, and T-shape lamps.\32\ The comments did not suggest that 
labeling for such products would help consumers with purchasing 
decisions. The Commission seeks comment on whether any of these bulb 
types should be included and, if so, why.

    \32\ See proposed section 305.3(z)(3).

    In addition to the labeling requirements, the proposal requires 
markings (i.e., the lumen and mercury marking currently required for 
general service lamps) on certain bulb shapes.\33\ For A-shape and 
spiral lamps, the Commission proposes requiring the same markings 
(i.e., lumens and mercury) that currently apply to general service 
lamps because the size and shape of these bulbs is similar. The 
proposal does not require lumen markings on the lamps themselves for 
decorative size bulbs, including B, BA, BA, F, and G-shapes, to avoid 
detracting from those products' appearance. However, the proposal would 
require mercury disclosures on all covered bulbs containing mercury to 
ensure the consumers have access to such information for cleanup and 

    \33\ 305.15(c)(2)(iii) (proposed).
    \34\ Because mercury disclosures generally apply only to compact 
fluorescent technology, manufacturers should be able to place such 
information on the ballast, where other information is commonly 

    The Commission proposes a smaller, single label option [Figure 1] 
that manufacturers may use on package fronts for certain specialty use 
bulbs to help fit the label on small packages.\35\ Because packaging 
for some specialty bulbs may consist of a blister pack on a small, 
single-sided card, the current rules, which require disclosures on two 
separate panels, may not be feasible. The proposed smaller label 
discloses lumens, energy cost, and bulb life, but not watts and light 
appearance. Under the proposal, the smaller label would not apply to 
certain large bulbs, such as vibration-service lamps, that resemble 
general service lamps in size and function and thus are likely to have 
packaging similar to general service bulbs. Finally, consistent with 
the current marking requirements for general service bulbs, bulbs 
containing mercury would include the Rule's mercury disclosure in a 
clear and conspicuous manner on the product itself.

    \35\ 305.15(c)(2) (proposed).


[[Page 34646]]


    In seeking to expand coverage of the Lighting Facts label, the 
Commission does not propose altering the Rule's existing test procedure 
and reporting requirements. Under the current rule, manufacturers (or 
private labelers) must use DOE test procedures for lamp products 
covered by those DOE test procedures. If no existing DOE test procedure 
applies to a particular lamp, the Rule requires manufacturers to 
possess and rely upon a reasonable basis consisting of competent and 
reliable scientific tests and procedures substantiating the 
representation.\36\ The Commission seeks comment on whether competent 
and reliable tests and procedures exist that manufacturers can use to 
derive the information for all the light bulbs covered by the expanded 
labeling proposal. Finally, because DOE has no comprehensive testing 
requirements for ``specialty'' bulbs covered by the new labeling 
proposal, the amendments contain no new reporting provisions.

    \36\ 16 CFR 305.5(b).

    For bulbs not covered by the proposal (e.g., consumer bulbs rated 
below 30 watts and below 310 lumens), the amendments would allow, but 
not require, manufacturers to use the Lighting Facts label.\37\ 
However, all Lighting Facts labels must follow the Rule's content and 
formatting requirements. Whether manufacturers use the Lighting Facts 
label or not, the FTC Act's general prohibition against deceptive 
claims requires manufacturers to substantiate any light bulb claims 
they make with competent and reliable scientific evidence.\38\

    \37\ See 305.15(d) (proposed).
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a). The FTC staff has observed that the 
Lighting Facts label already appears widely on products that fall 
beyond the Rule's current coverage for general service lamps.

    Finally, consistent with NEMA's suggestions, the proposal does not 
alter the definition of ``general service lamp.'' Instead, the 
Commission proposes to create a new category of covered bulbs called 
``specialty consumer lamps'' and identify the covered bulbs by shape, 
base, wattage, and lumen range. This approach will reduce confusion 
that may arise from changing the definition of ``general service 
lamp,'' which is also used in DOE's efficiency standards program. 
Finally, the Commission proposes a change to the definition of 
``fluorescent lamp ballast'' to conform with a new DOE definition for 
those products.\39\

    \39\ See 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011).

    The Commission seeks comment on all aspects of this proposal. In 
particular, comments should address whether labeling for ``specialty 
consumer lamps'' will help consumers make purchasing decisions and, if 
so, whether that benefit is outweighed by increased labeling costs. In 
addition, commenters should address whether the lower wattage limit 
should be 30 watts, or a different figure.\40\ Also, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the Rule should allow, but not require, the 
label on products that do not meet the proposed definition of 
``specialty consumer lamp.'' \41\ Finally, the Commission seeks 
comments on an appropriate compliance period for the proposed 

    \40\ The 30-watt figure is consistent with EPCA's definition of 
incandescent lamp (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)).
    \41\ The Commission also received comments recommending 
additional mercury disclosures on the Lighting Facts label for CFLs, 
such as specific mercury content in milligrams and explicit warnings 
(Moore (0004-80686) and Lee (0007-80686)). The 
current label, which became effective in 2012, alerts consumers to 
the presence of mercury in light bulbs and directs them to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Web site for more information. 
16 CFR 305.15(b)(3)(viii). The Commission developed the mercury 
disclosures in a recent rulemaking after seeking public comment and 
coordinating with EPA, which has technical expertise and regulatory 
responsibility over mercury issues. 75 FR 41696 (July 19, 2010). 
Given this recent proceeding, the Commission is not proposing 
additional disclosures at this time. If the EPA recommends 
additional or different disclosures in the future, the Commission 
will consider changes to the label.
    \42\ In its NPRM (76 FR 45721), the Commission proposed a two-
and-a-half year compliance period to minimize the likelihood that 
manufacturers will have to discard package inventory.

B. Online Label Database

    Background: To streamline and consolidate the manufacturer 
reporting process, in January 2013, the Commission amended the Rule to 
permit reporting through DOE's

[[Page 34647]]

Compliance and Certification Management System (CCMS).\43\ At the same 
time, the Commission required manufacturers to make copies of their 
EnergyGuide labels available on a publicly accessible Web site.\44\ In 
doing so, the Commission aimed to improve the availability of online 
labels for retailers that sell covered products online.\45\

    \43\ See 78 FR 2202-03 (amending 16 CFR 305.8).
    \44\ See 78 FR 2205 (amending 16 CFR 305.6). This amendment 
became effective on July 15, 2013.
    \45\ The Commission noted commentary arguing that many retailers 
do not use manufacturer Web sites to obtain labels. See 78 FR 2005, 

    Comments: In response to the 2012 regulatory review notice, several 
commenters urged additional measures to make labels more available 
online. These recommendations included an online label database and the 
use of electronic labels in lieu of paper.
    Seven energy-efficiency, environmental, and consumer advocacy 
organizations (560957-00028) (``Joint Commenters'') \46\ urged 
the FTC to develop an online label database maintained by the FTC or in 
conjunction with DOE. The Joint Commenters argued that the FTC and DOE 
databases \47\ are insufficient because they contain neither copies of 
labels nor all the information necessary to replicate label content.

    \46\ These organizations include Earthjustice, Consumers Union, 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Alliance to Save Energy, and Public Citizen. This document shall 
refer to these organizations collectively as the ``Joint 
Commenters'' and to their comments as the ``Joint Comments.''
    \47\ See https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. The FTC database 
has been recently consolidated with the DOE site. 78 FR 2200.

    The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 
(560957-00013), Whirlpool (560957-00010), and BSH 
Home Appliance Corporation (BSH) (560957-00007) urged the 
Commission to replace paper labeling with a publicly accessible online 
database. In support of this recommendation, these manufacturers 
reported that approximately two-thirds of consumers who purchased 
appliances in the prior year conducted online research prior to the 
purchase, and that more than 70% planned to do so for future purchases. 
Thus, the manufacturers concluded that having only online labels would 
be effective and sufficient. Whirlpool (560957-00010) added 
that the FTC should create a public online version of the existing CCMS 
database, and expand it to consolidate FTC and DOE requirements. 
Whirlpool argued that label images should continue to be displayed on 
manufacturer and retailer Web sites, and noted that it currently 
provides electronic access to label images for all current products, 
until the product is declared obsolete. Similarly, Alliance 
(560957-00011) questioned the necessity of paper labels in 
today's electronic age. Alliance supported use of the QR codes, but on 
a sign posted at point-of-sale instead of on a physical label.\48\ 
Alliance argued that such a presentation would provide consumers quick 
access via smart phone to the FTC database and/or manufacturers' Web 

    \48\ AHAM, BSH, and Whirlpool opposed requiring manufacturers to 
display QR codes on labels, arguing that doing so would be 
burdensome and unnecessary, especially if labels are available in a 
centralized database.

    Discussion: The Commission agrees that a centralized public 
database with easy access to labels would benefit consumers. To that 
end, FTC and DOE staff are considering regulatory changes to require 
manufacturers to submit URL links for covered product labels to the DOE 
CCMS database. Specifically, manufacturers may be required to post a 
link to the Web page displaying the label corresponding to each of 
their covered products.\49\ The Commission seeks comment on such a 

    \49\ As explained in an earlier Notice, this requirement would 
not apply to private labelers, but manufacturers would be allowed to 
arrange with third parties, including private labelers, to display 
the labels and to submit the required links to CCMS. See 78 FR 2205.

    This proposal should benefit consumers and retailers. Consumers 
will have access to a single comprehensive database at the DOE Web site 
containing label images for covered products. Online retailers will 
have access to digital labels for advertising, without submitting 
separate requests to manufacturers. Similarly, retailers that want to 
replace missing labels at the points-of-sale will be able to print 
replacements from the CCMS database.
    The proposal should not create undue burdens on manufacturers. The 
Rule already requires manufacturers of most covered products to submit 
annual reports. DOE likewise requires manufacturers to make detailed 
electronic submissions through CCMS.\50\ Additionally, manufacturers 
must display their labels online. The inclusion of URL links in those 
reports should not add significant burden to those existing 
requirements. Under the present proposal, a manufacturer could simply 
add a link on CCMS from its Web page displaying the label. In other 
words, the only additional burden upon manufacturers would be to paste 
URL links to Web pages that already exist and to delete links when 
removing or replacing the corresponding Web pages. Manufacturers will 
likely benefit by having a centralized online location through which to 
track and organize their web labels, which should help reduce the 
Rule's burden.

    \50\ 10 CFR 429.12.

    Because the proposed CCMS database would link to manufacturers' 
label Web pages, the Commission does not propose eliminating 
requirements related to such Web pages. Doing so would likely impose 
greater technical maintenance and coordination burdens on both DOE and 
    Finally, as explained above, the Commission does not propose 
abandoning physical labels at this time. Notwithstanding the growing 
availability of Internet access, physical labels, especially those 
displayed at the point-of-sale in stores, likely help a substantial 
number of consumers. The Commission recognizes the Internet's potential 
as a comprehensive source for energy consumption information, but not 
all consumers have online access, and not all those who do conduct 
online research before making purchase decisions. Moreover, even 
consumers who research products online may benefit from viewing the 
physical labels in the store.\51\ The Commission will continue to 
consider evolving buying patterns and potential changes to the Rule.

    \51\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(3) (the Commission may require the label 
to be displayed in a manner that the Commission determines is likely 
to assist consumers in purchasing decisions).

C. More Durable Labels for Clothes Washers, Dishwashers, and 

    Background: In its March 15, 2012 NPRM, the Commission discussed 
the need to improve the availability of EnergyGuide labels in retailer 
showrooms. Evidence gathered by the FTC and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) in 2007 and 2008, respectively, 
demonstrated that many covered products displayed in retailer showrooms 
were missing the required EnergyGuide labels. For example, the FTC 
found labels either detached or missing on approximately 38% of the 
8,500 appliances it examined across 89 retail locations in nine 
metropolitan areas.\52\

    \52\ 77 FR 1300.

    The Rule currently permits manufacturers of refrigerators, 
dishwashers, and clothes washers to post the required EnergyGuide 
labels either using adhesive labels or hang

[[Page 34648]]

tags.\53\ As part of its examination of more than 8,500 appliances sold 
by retailers, FTC staff found that products labeled with hang tags 
appear more likely to have detached or missing labels than those 
labeled with adhesives.\54\ Additionally, comments received during the 
recent television rulemaking indicated that hang tags often become 
twisted or dislodged in stores, which supports the FTC staff's 
findings. Concerned that hang tags may be less secure and more prone to 
detachment than adhesive labels, the Commission, in its March 15, 2012 
NPRM, proposed prohibiting hang tags for clothes washers, dishwashers, 
and refrigerators, and instead requiring adhesive labels.\55\ The 
Commission sought comments on its proposal.

    \53\ 16 CFR 305.11(d)-(e). Because the Rule does not allow hang 
tags on the exterior of appliances, manufacturers must use adhesive 
labels for products with no accessible interior (e.g. water 
    \54\ See 77 FR 15300 & n.24.
    \55\ 77 FR 15299-15300. EPCA permits the Commission to prescribe 
the manner in which EnergyGuide labels are displayed 42 U.S.C. 
6294(c)(3), (c)(9).

    Comments: The comments were mixed. The Joint Commenters 
(560957-00028) supported the proposal. They presented findings 
from a yearlong in-store labeling investigation, during which they 
visited 48 appliance showrooms and observed more than 2,500 displayed 
appliances across six product categories and 347 television units. 
Their investigation confirmed that ```hang tag' style'' labels become 
detached much more frequently than adhesive labels.\56\ At the same 
time, they observed that labels attached by plastic cable ties or by 
strings with reinforced punch holes were more likely to remain 
attached. Accordingly, the Joint Commenters recommended that the 
Commission specify that labels be attached with more durable materials, 
such as adhesive-backed paper or with multiple strips of tape.

    \56\ Specifically, the Joint Commenters found that label 
attachment by string, plastic bobby pin, or directly onto a prong in 
the front of dishwasher top racks exhibit higher rates of 
detachment. They also found that labels attached with single strips 
of adhesive tape or strings connected to single strips of tape hung 
from the inside of products were more likely to be loose or missing.

    Like the Joint Commenters, three Western energy utilities 
recommended prohibiting hang tags.\57\ However, they urged the 
Commission to require that adhesive labels leave no or minimal adhesive 
residue when peeled from the product, and that any adhesive residue be 
easy to clean using common household products.

    \57\ Comments of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), 
Southern California Gas Company (SCGC), and San Diego Gas and 
Electric (SDG&E) (560957-00009).

    Three manufacturers opposed an adhesive label-only requirement.\58\ 
They argued that adhesive labels applied directly to products might 
leave marks or residual matter, especially on stainless steel products, 
which comprise nearly a third of major home appliances. They noted that 
affixing an adhesive to the protective film that covers products would 
be counterproductive because retailers likely would remove the film 
from display models, and may not reattach the label before displaying 
the product. They also explained that temperature and humidity might 
cause adhesive labels on products in storage or transit to become too 
sticky or lose their adhesive qualities. They also raised concerns 
about the anticipated additional capital and labor costs associated 
with a transition to adhesive labels. Finally, they explained that 
since many manufacturers display both U.S. and Canadian labels on a 
single double-sided hang tag, a transition to adhesive labels would 
force manufacturers to print two separate labels.

    \58\ Whirlpool Corporation (560957-00010) and BSH Home 
Appliance Corporation (560957-00007), as well as AHAM 
(560957-00013). On the other hand, Alliance Laundry Systems 
LCC (560957-00011) supported the proposed transition to 
adhesive labels, arguing that adhesive labels should reduce the 
incidence of missing labels on display models.

    Manufacturers proposed several alternatives. As discussed in 
Section B, they recommended that the Commission abandon physical labels 
altogether. Arguing that physical labels are no longer relevant because 
consumers research product information online, they proposed that the 
Commission create an online database through which consumers can 
research products' energy efficiency.\59\ If the Commission retains a 
physical label requirement, manufacturers argued that labels should be 
required only on showroom models.

    \59\ AHAM, Whirlpool, and BSH Home Appliance Corporation argued 
that consumers' ability to research products online has diminished 
the usefulness of in-store information, citing 2012 research 
findings that nearly two-thirds of consumers who made major 
appliance purchases researched the products in advance and more than 
70% plan to do so for future purchases.

    However, manufacturers did not recommend prohibiting adhesive 
labels. Instead, they recommended retaining both the adhesive and hang 
tag options. Additionally, Whirlpool recommended requiring two strings 
for hang tags to reduce missing labels. AHAM proposed amending the Rule 
to allow hang tags on product exteriors, in addition to interiors.\60\ 
AHAM argued that such an amendment would afford manufacturers greater 
flexibility in choosing hang tag placement to maximize consumer 
readability, providing a potential equivalent to adhesive labels 
affixed to product exteriors. Finally, manufacturers argued that if the 
Commission prohibits hang tags in favor of adhesive labels, it should 
permit smaller adhesive labels for clothes washers and dishwashers.

    \60\ 16 CFR 305.11(e)(2) currently allows hang tags to be 
affixed to the interior of a product.

    Discussion: The commenters raise compelling arguments against 
requiring only adhesive labels for clothes washers, dishwashers, and 
refrigerators. The Commission wants to avoid imposing labeling 
requirements that could lead to the damage of stainless steel products, 
causing significant costs to manufacturers. However, the Rule will 
retain adhesive labels as an option, allowing manufacturers to choose 
between adhesives (including flap tags) and improved hang tags. The 
Commission may reconsider requiring adhesive labels in the future if 
the proposed hang tag improvements do not sufficiently reduce the 
incidence of missing labels.
    The Commission proposes amending the Rule (Section 305.11(d)(2)) to 
require that hang tags be affixed to products using cable ties (i.e., 
``zip ties''), double strings with reinforced punch holes, or material 
with equivalent or greater strength, connected with reinforced punch 
holes. These methods should improve label resilience, which in turn 
should reduce the incidence of missing labels. Additionally, they 
should not pose an undue burden for manufacturers, as suggested by 
Whirlpool's receptiveness to the double-string approach. The Commission 
invites additional comments on this proposal, including suggestions of 
other effective label attachment methods.
    The Commission does not propose amending the Rule to allow hang 
tags to be affixed to products' exteriors because it is concerned about 
the heightened risk of detachment with exterior hang tags. The 
Commission prohibited exterior hang tags in 2007 to ``minimize the 
chance that labels will become dislodged from products.'' \61\ At that 
time, AHAM supported the prohibition, explaining that hang tags affixed 
to products' exteriors ``can be damaged or accidentally removed during 
distribution and therefore may be absent when products reach retail.'' 
\62\ The

[[Page 34649]]

Commission plans to pursue its current proposal for improved hang tag 
attachment methods before reconsidering its recent decision to prohibit 
exterior hang tags.

    \61\ 72 FR 49948 (Aug. 29, 2007).
    \62\ AHAM (527896-00006). Despite AHAM's suggestion, 
the Commission is reluctant to undo the Rule's prohibition on 
exterior hang tags and rely solely on the Rule's catch-all provision 
(``as long as the label will not become dislodged''), since this 
provision has not to date eliminated missing and obscured hang tags.

    Finally, the Commission does not propose amending the Rule to 
include additional provisions suggested by the comments. First, the 
Commission does not propose prescribing more specific types of adhesive 
labels. Absent evidence of widespread problems caused by deficient 
adhesion methods, the Commission is reluctant to prescribe additional 
specific label attachment requirements that would reduce flexibility 
and may impose costs. Still, manufacturers should remain mindful that 
labels ``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.'' 
\63\ Second, the Commission does not propose permitting smaller sized 
adhesive labels for clothes washers and dishwashers. Given the proposed 
retention of hang tags as an option, a smaller adhesive label size does 
not appear necessary. Third, the Commission does not propose limiting 
labels to display models. As the Commission explained in its recent 
television rulemaking, retailers may not receive specific products 
designated for display.\64\ In addition, the appearance of labels on 
non-display models provides consumers useful energy consumption 
information after the purchase to help them understand the estimated 
energy use of their product. Finally, the Commission does not propose 
abandoning physical labels altogether in favor of online resources, as 
discussed in Section B above.

    \63\ 16 CFR Sec.  305.11(d)(1).
    \64\ See 76 FR 1038, 1042 (Jan. 6, 2011).

D. Labels on Room and Portable Air Conditioner Boxes

    Background: In the 2012 Regulatory Review NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to require manufacturers to print or affix EnergyGuide labels 
on room air conditioner boxes instead of adhering them to the units 
themselves.\65\ FTC staff has observed that retailers often display 
these products in boxes stacked on shelves or on the showroom floor, 
preventing consumers from examining the label before purchase. The 
proposed box label would address this problem.\66\ The Commission 
proposed to provide manufacturers with at least two years to implement 
this change to minimize the burdens associated with package changes. In 
seeking comments, the Commission asked whether retailers typically 
display room air conditioners in, or out of, the box, and whether the 
proposal would accomplish the Commission's goal of consistently 
providing energy disclosures to consumers.

    \65\ 77 FR 15300.
    \66\ The Commission has followed this approach with ceiling fan 
labels, which must appear on the principal display panel of 
packages. See 16 CFR 305.13(a)(3).

    Comments: The comments offered conflicting views. Industry members, 
including AHAM ( 560957-00013) and Whirlpool ( 
560957-00010), opposed the proposal. They asserted that box labeling is 
unnecessary because retailers usually display at least one unit of each 
model outside of the box to allow consumers to view and compare the 
models offered for sale. Furthermore, consumers viewing an unboxed 
display unit would have to locate the matching box to read the model's 
EnergyGuide label. Industry members also argued that the proposal would 
create an inconsistency with Canadian requirements, which require the 
label on the unit itself. This would decrease harmonization between the 
two programs and add significant cost by requiring manufacturers to use 
two labels.
    AHAM also took issue with the proposal's complexity. It noted that 
the Commission would have to allow for black and white labels because 
many boxes are not printed in color. It also indicated that the label 
may not be visible to consumers if the box is stacked in a way that 
obscures the label. These comments also noted that the label may not 
easily fit on boxes for smaller room air conditioners, some of which 
are about a foot high. AHAM argued that, were the Commission to require 
box labels, it should allow manufacturers to use an adhesive sticker 
rather than printing the label directly on the box. Finally, AHAM asked 
whether the label would have to appear in multiple languages if other 
information on the box appeared in languages other than English.
    In contrast, the Joint Commenters ( 560957-00015) urged 
the Commission to require labels on both boxes and the products 
themselves. In support, they cited store visit results indicating that 
retailers display units as often inside the box as outside. The Joint 
Commenters also recommended that the Commission follow the same 
approach for compact refrigerators and water heaters, noting that many 
stores they visited displayed these products in boxes while others 
displayed them only out of the box.\67\ However, the store results 
provided by the Joint Commenters suggested that more compact 
refrigerator models were displayed outside the box than in. 
Additionally, the comments did not provide comparative information on 
the number of water heater models displayed outside of the box.\68\

    \67\ The current Rule requires that EnergyGuide labels for these 
products be affixed to the products themselves, not the box. 16 CFR 
    \68\ In addition, PG&E ( 560957-00009) recommended that 
the Commission require water heater energy factor (EF) and central 
air conditioner seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) information 
on packaging to help consumers and aid in compliance with state 
building code standards. For central air conditioners, the 
Commission recently required EnergyGuide labels, which include SEER 
information, on product packaging as part of the regional standards 
rulemaking. 78 FR 8362 (Feb. 6, 2013). For water heaters, it is 
unclear whether the benefits of including EF information on 
packaging justify its inclusion on packages because it is unlikely 
most consumers are familiar with the term. In addition, state code 
enforcers can easily obtain such EF information from DOE's 
Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) database. See 

    Finally, AHAM requested that the Commission revise the label to 
require a new efficiency rating disclosure, noting that DOE has changed 
the energy efficiency metric for room air conditioners from energy 
efficiency ratio (EER) to a combined energy efficiency ratio 
(CEER).\69\ The CEER accounts for the product's energy use in 
``standby'' and ``off'' modes in addition to the ``active'' mode, 
whereas the EER only reflects the product's energy use in ``active'' 
mode. The new DOE rules that become mandatory on June 1, 2014 provide 
instructions for converting CEER ratings to estimated annual energy 
cost. According to AHAM, the change stemming from the CEER ratings is 

    \69\ See 10 CFR 430.23(f)(5).

    Discussion: After considering the comments, the Commission proposes 
requiring the labels on room air conditioner boxes. The Commission does 
not propose changing existing labeling requirements for compact 
refrigerators and freezers and water heaters because these products do 
not appear to be predominantly displayed in boxes. Though some comments 
stated that retailers usually display at least one air conditioner 
model unit outside of the box, the store visit information from the 
Joint Commenters suggests that is not always the case. To follow up on 
these comments, the FTC staff visited more than 40 retail stores from 
six major retail chains in eight cities across the country and found 
that, in those locations, room air conditioner models are usually 
displayed either in the box only (50% of models observed) or both

[[Page 34650]]

in the box with a few display units located on or near those boxes (29% 
of models observed).\70\

    \70\ Only 21% were displayed solely out of boxes. These results 
are based on FTC staff's review of more than 160 models (not 
individual units) offered for sale at a variety of stores in eight 
different metropolitan areas. The results are not necessarily 
nationally representative.

    Under the proposal, manufacturers would have the flexibility to 
choose a background color for the label to avoid requiring some 
manufacturers to redesign their boxes. Manufacturers could also use 
stickers in lieu of printing the label on the box itself. This would 
allow them to update their labels in response to test procedure or 
range changes without creating new packaging. With sufficient lead-
time, manufacturers should be able to incorporate the label on 
packaging with little or no additional burden.\71\ Under the proposal, 
the labels must appear on the package's primary display panel, that 
part of a label that is most likely to be displayed, presented, shown, 
or examined under normal and customary conditions of display for retail 

    \71\ Consistent with existing requirements for light bulb 
packaging, the proposed rule would not require bilingual labels for 
room air conditioners.
    \72\ See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 1459(f) (Fair Package and Labeling 

    Accordingly, commenters should address whether this approach raises 
complications for routine label revisions due to range changes, cost 
updates, or test procedure amendments. Also, the Commission seeks 
comment on the amount of time necessary to effect these changes and the 
efficacy and burdens of requiring the label on the box.
    The Commission is not proposing to require labels on both the 
product and the box. The burden of requiring physical labels in 
multiple locations likely outweighs the benefits from such additional 
disclosures, particularly given new provisions increasing the labels' 
availability to consumers online.\73\

    \73\ Such measures include new requirements to ensure the 
label's presence on retailer and manufacturer Web sites published 
last year (78 FR 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013)) and, as proposed in this 
document, the inclusion of EnergyGuide labels on DOE's Web site.

    Finally, the Commission proposes two changes related to recent DOE 
regulatory actions. First, it proposes to change the room air 
conditioner label to replace EER ratings with CEER ratings consistent 
with upcoming DOE changes for these products. According to commenters, 
the differences between EER and CEER should be minor. Therefore, the 
Commission only proposes a simple name change in Section 305.7 and 
sample label 4, which change the label's capacity description for these 
products. Second, the Commission proposes requiring EnergyGuide labels 
for portable air conditioners, in light of a recent DOE proposal to 
designate portable air conditioners as covered products under EPCA.\74\ 
Given the similarity of portable air conditioners to room air 
conditioners, the Commission expects the Rule would require the same or 
similar labeling for the two products. The Commission would not require 
labeling until DOE completes a test procedure. Commenters should 
address whether portable air conditioners should be treated differently 
from room air conditioners for labeling purposes, and, if so, why.

    \74\ 78 FR 40403 (July 5, 2013). Portable air conditioners are 
movable units, unlike room air conditioners, which are permanently 
installed on the wall or in a window. If the Commission decides to 
require labels for these products, it will amend the Rule's coverage 
(and associated language) in a manner consistent with any final DOE 

E. Improved Ceiling Fan Labels

    Background: The current label, which appears on product boxes and 
bears the title ``Energy Information,'' provides information on airflow 
(cubic feet per minute), energy use in watts, and energy efficiency 
(cubic feet per minute per watt) at high speed. In the March 2012 NPRM, 
the Commission proposed to require estimated annual energy cost 
information as the primary disclosure on the ceiling fan label.\75\ As 
the Commission has stated in the past, consumer research suggests 
energy cost ``provides a clear, understandable tool to allow consumers 
to compare the energy performance of different models.'' \76\ As with 
the EnergyGuide label for appliances, the new ceiling fan label would 
emphasize that ``Your cost depends on rates and use.'' The proposed 
yellow label features the familiar ``EnergyGuide'' logo. The Commission 
proposed using six hours and eleven cents per kWh/hour to calculate the 
label's cost disclosure.\77\ To minimize the burden associated with 
this change, the Commission proposed providing manufacturers two years 
to change their packaging.

    \75\ 77 FR 15302.
    \76\ 72 FR 49948, 49959 (Aug. 29, 2007) (appliance labels); see 
also 75 FR 41696 (July 19, 2010) (light bulb labels); 76 FR 1038 
(Jan. 6, 2011) (television labels).
    \77\ The six hour duty cycle estimate is consistent with ceiling 
fan research conducted in California. See Davis Energy Group 
(Prepared for Pacific Gas & Electric), Analysis of Standards Options 
For Ceiling Fans, May 2004 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2003rulemaking/documents/case_studies/CASE_Ceiling_Fan.pdf). The 
eleven cent electricity cost figure, which is based on DOE 
information, also appears on recently amended light bulb labels and 
television labels. See 75 FR 41696 and 75 FR 12470.

    Comments: In response, two comments generally supported the 
proposed changes, but offered specific suggestions. Fanimation 
(560957-00024) recommended label statements about energy 
savings from ceiling fans. It also recommended label usage and rate 
assumptions of one hour per day and ten cents per kWh or, 
alternatively, the same assumptions used on the Lighting Facts label 
(i.e., three hours per day and elevent cents per kWh). Progress 
Lighting ( 560957-00022) recommended a usage assumption of 
three hours per day and urged the Commission to format the label to 
resemble the Lighting Facts label. Both Fanimation and Progress 
Lighting recommended that the Commission merge its label with that of 
the California Energy Commission (CEC) to provide consumers the range 
of costs to operate the fan on low, medium, and high speeds.\78\

    \78\ See http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-400-2010-012/CEC-400-2010-012.PDF.

    Discussion: The Commission proposes changing the ceiling fan label 
as described in the NPRM. The proposed label continues to include a 
daily use assumption of six hours. Commenters offered no basis for 
alternative assumptions. In addition, the Commission proposes using an 
energy rate of twelve cents per kWh consistent with recent DOE national 
data used for other EnergyGuide labels.\79\

    \79\ 78 FR 17648 (Mar. 22, 2013). The Commission does not 
propose including energy savings information on the label because it 
could confuse consumers and would be inconsistent with other FTC 
energy labels. Nothing in the Rule prohibits manufacturers from 
making substantiated energy savings claims elsewhere on the package.

    The proposed label follows the EnergyGuide label format, consistent 
with other products displayed in showrooms, such as refrigerators and 
clothes washers.\80\ The suggested Lighting Facts format would require 
a new title, such as ``Energy Facts,'' reducing the consistency of 
FTC's energy labels. In addition, although fans often contain lights, 
they serve different functions and the current label excludes the 
energy use of any light bulbs attached to the fan. The Commission,

[[Page 34651]]

therefore, has not identified a reason to treat the two products 

    \80\ The proposed amendment will also have the effect of 
clarifying that ceiling fan manufacturers must post a copy of their 
product labels online pursuant to Section 305.6. That section 
currently directs manufacturers to post their ``EnergyGuide'' 
labels, and does not specifically mention the current ``Energy 
Information'' label for ceiling fans. The proposed amendment to 
Section 305.13 would require ceiling fan manufacturers to use 
EnergyGuide labels, thereby triggering the online-posting 
requirement of Section 305.6.

    Finally, the Commission does not propose including disclosures 
required by the CEC, which include energy information at multiple 
speeds. Such information is likely to complicate the label by providing 
three sets of disclosures for CFM, energy cost, and energy use. In 
addition, the label's current high-speed disclosures should provide 
adequate information for consumers to compare the relative energy cost 
and performance of competing fans.\81\ The Commission seeks further 
comment on the proposed label, including its content, and the necessary 
compliance time for manufacturers.

    \81\ In limiting the current label's disclosures to high speed 
operation, the Commission explained that ``inclusion of information 
for other speed settings would clutter the label with few additional 
benefits'' and noted comments indicating high-speed measurements 
reflect the ``the true unregulated performance of the fan.'' 71 FR 
78057, 78059 (Dec. 28, 2006).

F. Consolidated Refrigerator Ranges

    Background: The current rule organizes refrigerator comparability 
ranges by configuration (e.g., models with top-mounted freezers), 
designating eight separate range categories for refrigerators and three 
for freezers.\82\ The ranges disclose the energy costs of the most and 
least efficient model in each category. These categories allow 
consumers to compare the energy use of similarly configured units. 
Specifically, for automatic-defrost refrigerator-freezers, which 
populate the bulk of showroom floors, the Rule contains five categories 
(or styles): side-by-side door models with and without through-the-door 
ice service; top-mounted freezer models with and without through-the-
door ice service; and bottom-mounted freezer models.\83\

    \82\ The Rule further divides each model category into several 
size classes (e.g., 19.5 to 21.4 cubic feet), each with its own 
comparability range.
    \83\ See 16 CFR Part 305, Appendices A and B. The Rule also has 
other range categories for less common models, including those with 
manual and partial defrost, and refrigerator-only models. In 
addition, the freezer categories include upright models with 
automatic defrost, upright models with manual defrost, and chest 

    Comments: AHAM opposed changes to the current range categories, 
arguing that consolidation of the ranges would cast fully-featured 
products, which generally use more energy, in an unfavorable light. 
AHAM also pointed to data suggesting that consumers usually replace 
their existing refrigerators with similarly configured models. However, 
AHAM acknowledged that it had no information addressing whether 
consumers shop with a specific configuration in mind.\84\

    \84\ AHAM comments (Sept. 11, 2012) ( 560957-00025) 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelamend/560957-0002-84112.pdf.

    The Joint Commenters urged the Commission to consolidate the 
comparability ranges.\85\ They reasoned a single range would allow 
consumers to easily compare energy performance across models. They 
argued that the FTC's current approach to refrigerator ranges focuses 
consumer attention on small differences in energy efficiency and 
operating costs while obscuring large differences across 
categories.\86\ They also asserted that the current ranges rest on 
arbitrary classifications devised for purposes other than consumer 
communication (e.g., implementation of DOE efficiency standards), 
rather than on any evidence the label classifications are ``likely to 
assist consumers with their purchasing decisions.'' The Joint 
Commenters also noted that labels for many models, such as French door 
refrigerators, have no comparison information at all.

    \85\ Joint Comments (560957-00015) available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelamend/00015-83010.pdf.
    \86\ Joint Comments (563707-00005) available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelrangers/index.shtm.

    According to the Joint Commenters, many consumers consider 
refrigerators with different configurations (and likely different 
features) when making purchasing decisions. To support this assertion, 
the commenters pointed to data demonstrating that, in 2012, 40% of the 
visitors to Consumer Reports' online refrigerator ratings reviewed 
multiple refrigerator-freezer configurations. The Joint Commenters also 
reasoned that those who examined only one configuration probably 
considered models with, and without, through-the-door ice dispensers, 
and may have looked at an additional configuration on a subsequent 
visit. In addition, the Joint Commenters pointed to AHAM information 
demonstrating that more than half of side-by-side refrigerator-freezer 
owners buy replacement units with a different configuration. The 
commenters contended that this was probably a conservative estimate 
because it does not include owners who bought similarly configured 
replacement units with different features. Finally, the Joint 
Commenters submitted the results of a survey of Earthjustice members 
showing that more than two thirds of respondents indicated that a label 
that compared across subcategories would be more likely to assist them 
in making their purchasing decision.
    Finally, the Joint Commenters further argued that, even if some 
consumers initially limit themselves to a certain product subcategory, 
an EnergyGuide label illustrating the energy cost range over all 
subcategories may spur them to consider other configurations. They 
contend that, although the ENERGY STAR program continues to use 
separate categories for rating products, ``the mere fact that ENERGY 
STAR labels refrigerators in a way that obscures the impacts of 
configurations and features does not justify'' the maintenance of those 
categories for EnergyGuide labeling.
    Discussion: The Commission proposes consolidating most of the 
ranges for certain types of refrigerator models. The comments suggest 
that a substantial number of consumers consider different model 
configurations when shopping. The consolidation of ranges will 
facilitate such comparison shopping, simplify the range categories, and 
alert consumers to the relative energy efficiency of various 
refrigerator types. As the Commission has previously explained, the 
EnergyGuide label permits consumers to compare the energy costs of 
competing appliances and to weigh this attribute against other product 
features in making their purchasing decisions. The Commission expects 
that consolidation of refrigerator categories will promote this goal by 
helping consumers to weigh energy cost considerations across different 
refrigerator configurations.
    Specifically, the Commission proposes to consolidate the ranges for 
refrigerators into three categories: automatic defrost refrigerator-
freezers (currently Appendices A4-A8), manual or partial manual 
refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers (currently Appendices A2-A3, 
which cover mostly small-sized models), and refrigerators with no 
freezer (currently Appendix A1). The proposed approach would 
consolidate ranges for automatic defrost models purchased by the vast 
majority of residential consumers, while maintaining separate 
categories for less common models.\87\ The Rule would maintain separate 
size classifications within the three categories because shoppers are 
unlikely to compare

[[Page 34652]]

models of widely different sizes. The proposal also maintains the three 
freezer categories for upright manual defrost models (Appendix B1), 
upright automatic defrost models (Appendix B2), and chest freezers 
(Appendix B3) because there is no evidence that consumers typically 
compare models across these categories when shopping. Under the 
proposal, the Commission would require such changes after the receipt 
of new model data following the implementation of DOE's new standards 
and test procedures in September 2014.

    \87\ Given the different characteristics of these latter models, 
the Commission expects that typical consumers do not consider such 
models alongside automatic defrost refrigerator-freezers because of 
significant differences in the performance of these models (e.g., 
manual defrost vs. automatic defrost). For automatic defrost 
refrigerator freezers, the label would state, ``Cost range based on 
all automatic-defrost refrigerator-freezers regardless of features 
or configuration.''

    The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Among other things, 
comments should address whether the consolidation of range categories 
would impact the DOE and EnergyStar programs, which continue to follow 
DOE's multiple configuration categories.\88\

    \88\ The proposed changes to the ranges would require extensive 
conforming amendments to sections 305.11, section 305.20, and 
Appendices A and B. In the interest of brevity, the Commission has 
not included specific language in this document.

G. Updates to Heating and Cooling Equipment Labels

    Background: On February 6, 2013, the Commission published new 
labeling requirements for heating and cooling equipment, some of which 
have been postponed due to ongoing DOE litigation.\89\ The new labels, 
directed by Congress, provide industry members and consumers with 
information about regional efficiency standards recently issued by 
DOE.\90\ These new DOE requirements impose regional efficiency 
standards for four product categories: split-system air conditioners, 
single-package air conditioners, non-weatherized gas furnaces, and 
mobile home gas furnaces. For all other covered heating and cooling 
equipment (e.g., oil furnaces, boilers, and electric furnaces), the 
updated standards remain nationally uniform. The new labels require the 
inclusion of model number and capacity information on labels for all 
furnaces and central air conditioners. The Commission explained that 
this information would help consumers access DOE-generated cost 
information referenced on the label. In addition, for split systems, 
the model number and capacity allows consumers to obtain efficiency 
rating and energy cost information of varying condenser-coil 

    \89\ 78 FR 8362.
    \90\ 16 CFR 305.12 & App. L, Prototype Label 3, Sample Labels 
7A, 7B, 9.

    In its February 6, 2013 Notice, the Commission tied implementation 
of the new labeling requirements for all heating and cooling equipment 
(including products not subject to uniform standards) to the DOE 
compliance dates for the regional standards.\91\ However, as part of 
ongoing litigation, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the 
implementation of the DOE regional furnace standards in 2013.\92\ That 
stay effectively postponed FTC label updates for all furnace products 
subject to DOE standards, as well as some products, including oil 
furnaces, boilers, and electric furnaces not subject to the regional 

    \91\ DOE scheduled two compliance dates for the new standards: 
May 1, 2013, for non-weatherized gas furnaces, mobile home gas 
furnaces, and non-weatherized oil furnaces; and January 1, 2015, for 
weatherized gas furnaces and all central air conditioners and heat 
    \92\ American Public Gas Ass'n v. DOE, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir. 
filed Dec. 23, 2011) (DE.1433580, May 1, 2013).

    In addition, on April 24, 2014, the Court approved a settlement in 
the DOE litigation, which vacates and remands DOE's regional standards 
for non-weatherized natural gas and mobile home furnaces and set a two-
year time table for DOE to propose new standards. The settlement does 
not affect other DOE standards, including the regional standards for 
split system and single package central air conditioners scheduled to 
become effective on January 1, 2015. However, as part of the 
settlement, DOE has agreed to issue a policy statement establishing an 
18-month enforcement grace period for any air conditioner units 
manufactured before January 1, 2015.\93\

    \93\ Id. (DE. 1489805, April 24, 2014).

    Comments: Given the uncertainties raised by the DOE regional 
standards litigation, AHRI (563707-00010) urged the Commission 
to modify the Rule's provisions to establish a new compliance date for 
boilers and oil-fired furnaces, separate from the regional standards' 
implementation. These product categories do not have regional standards 
and are not part of the ongoing DOE litigation. AHRI, therefore, 
recommended a November 1, 2014 compliance date for boiler and oil 
furnace disclosures. It also requested that FTC staff provide template 
labels for these products, consistent with the templates provided for 
other covered products.\94\

    \94\ See FTC templates at http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/energyguide-labels-template.

    In addition, AHRI (563707-00010) raised concerns about the 
required capacity disclosure on the new labels. It explained that, for 
split-system air conditioners, capacity depends on the actual 
condenser-coil combination installed on site. The EnergyGuide label 
only appears on the condensing unit. Because manufacturers cannot 
predict which coil will be paired with a particular condenser, they 
cannot predict the system's capacity rating. Similarly, for oil 
furnaces, the unit's ultimate capacity depends on the input set by the 
    Thus, in AHRI's view, the inclusion of capacity information on 
these products is unnecessary and could mislead consumers. In lieu of 
capacity ratings, AHRI suggested that the FTC allow manufacturers to 
print basic model numbers on their EnergyGuide labels, which can be 
used to access cost information on DOE's database.
    Discussion: The Commission proposes November 1, 2014 as the 
effective date for boilers and oil-furnace labels and ranges. 
Furthermore, because DOE is not likely to issue revised regional 
furnace standards for at least two years, the Commission proposes to 
update the labels and ranges for all furnaces consistent with the 
Commission's February 6, 2013 Notice (see Figures 2 and 3).\95\ These 
updates would not include regional standards information.\96\ However, 
as explained in the 2013 Notice, the updates would include new ranges 
and a prominent link to an online energy cost calculator provided by a 
DOE Web site (productinfo.energy.gov). This calculator provides a 
clear, understandable tool to compare energy performance.\97\ The 
Commission also proposes to make these revised labels effective on 
January 1, 2015 for gas furnaces, to coincide with new efficiency 
standards for those products. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should eliminate existing Rule language related to regional 
furnace standards until DOE issues revised standards in the future.

    \95\ The proposed rule language in this document contains 
conforming changes to the range tables for heating and cooling 
products in Appendices G1 through G8. However, to minimize the 
length of this document, the proposed rule language does not include 
conforming changes to all sample labels in the Rule. Should the 
Commission issue final amendments consistent with this proposal, the 
final Notice will contain conforming sample label changes.
    \96\ This proposal would not alter the January 1, 2015 
compliance date for central air conditioners established in the 
February 6, 2013 notice. 78 FR 8362. However, consistent with DOE's 
enforcement policy for existing stock of central air conditioners 
(attached to the regional standards settlement), the Commission does 
not expect manufacturers to place the new regional standards label 
on units manufactured before January 1, 2015.
    \97\ 78 FR 8365.

    In response to AHRI's capacity concerns, the Commission proposes 
eliminating capacity on EnergyGuide labels for heating and cooling

[[Page 34653]]

equipment, but maintaining model numbers. As AHRI explained, the 
installed capacity of many of these products will vary depending, for 
example, on the condenser-coil combination for split-systems. 
Accordingly, a capacity requirement raises implementation problems and 
could mislead consumers. Under the proposal, consumers would be able to 
use model numbers from the labels to access specific cost information 
for various products, including condenser-coil combinations, through 
the DOE Web site. As with other covered products, manufacturers may 
print multiple model numbers on labels for models sharing the same 
efficiency ratings. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

[[Page 34654]]



H. QR Codes

    Background: In the NPRM, the FTC sought comment on whether to 
require QR (``Quick Response'') codes on EnergyGuide labels. QR codes 
are black and white matrix barcodes that provide access to a Web site 
through a mobile phone equipped with scanning software. A QR code could 
connect consumers to energy use information, including the broad energy 
impacts and greenhouse gas emissions associated with a product's use, 
through government Web sites or other source information.
    Comments: Most commenters, particularly industry members, raised 
concerns about the feasibility and utility of the QR code proposal. 
AHRI (560957-00020), AHAM (560957-00020), and A.O. 
Smith (560957-00003) warned the codes might inundate consumers 
with confusing information.\98\ AHRI and AHAM added that the 
EnergyGuide label provides

[[Page 34655]]

adequate information to consumers, rendering the addition of a QR code, 
with its associated burden, unnecessary. AHAM further explained that a 
QR code requirement is premature because DOE has not developed 
information on broad energy use impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. 
AHAM also noted the difficulty in judging the efficacy of QR codes 
without more information about their linked content. Panasonic 
( 560957-00014) added that prescriptive rules could be 
premature for this evolving technology. AHAM and Panasonic also warned 
that QR codes could create space limitations, particularly for the 
television label, and diminish the marketing benefits of separate 
manufacturer created QR codes located elsewhere on the packaging. AHRI 
urged the Commission to make any QR code optional and to allow 
manufacturers to link the code to their own Web sites.

    \98\ See also Bradford White ( 560957-00004) and BSH 
( 560957-00007).

    In contrast, Southern Cal Edison (560957-00008) and PG&E 
(560957-00009) supported the inclusion of such codes on the 
label because they would facilitate innovative practices for 
communicating useful consumer information to help purchasing decisions. 
In their view, QR codes would complement a growing market trend and 
allow consumers to conduct ``on the go'' research with their smart 
phones. It would also provide an opportunity for utility programs and 
third party rebate programs to inform interested buyers about rebates 
for efficient products.
    The comments also offered differing views on label information for 
full fuel cycle and greenhouse gas impacts. PG&E urged the FTC to work 
with DOE to inform consumers about the broad energy impacts and 
greenhouse gas emissions of covered products and to display such 
information on the EnergyGuide label. In contrast, Whirlpool asserted 
that consumers do not find data on greenhouse gases and full fuel cycle 
information relevant to their purchase decision.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose requiring QR codes on 
labels. Until the development of Web site content to supplement 
information already on the EnergyGuide label, it is premature to 
propose any specific vehicle for linking consumers to that content. For 
now, manufacturers should not include their own QR codes on the 
EnergyGuide label, except for the limited purpose of conveying model 
numbers or similar product identification. Of course, manufacturers may 
use their own QR codes in other locations.
    The FTC staff will continue to consider full-fuel cycle and 
greenhouse gas information for consumers and keep track of DOE's 
efforts to incorporate full-fuel cycle analysis into their 
decisionmaking.\99\ To aid that process, the Commission invites 
comments on these issues, including the overall usefulness of such 
information in consumer purchasing decisions.

    \99\ See, e.g., 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).

I. Bilingual Issues

    Background: The current Rule allows, but does not require, 
bilingual Lighting Facts labels on packaging for general service light 
bulbs.\100\ The Commission previously sought comment on whether the 
Rule should mandate non-English labels when manufacturers make claims 
in a foreign language.\101\ Specifically, the Commission asked about 
the prevalence and content of non-English claims on light bulb 
packages, the sufficiency of labels in conveying information to non-
English speakers, and the impacts of mandatory bilingual labels on 

    \100\ See 16 CFR 305.15. EPCA neither mandates nor prohibits 
multilingual disclosures on labels and packages.
    \101\ 76 FR 45715 (Aug. 1, 2011).

    Comments: NEMA opposed a triggered bilingual labeling requirement, 
citing space limitations on packages and the confusion multiple 
languages may cause. NEMA observed that bilingual packaging is common, 
though not uniform throughout the market, with Spanish and French used 
most often.\102\ The type of information typically conveyed in non-
English languages includes performance (lumens, watts), warnings, and 
application information. According to NEMA, the use of non-English 
claims depends on the packaging strategies of individual manufacturers 
and their retail business partners.

    \102\ However, NEMA did not state that any light bulb packaging 
in the U.S. displays a language other than English as the 
predominant language.

    NEMA argued that a bilingual label will not fit on all packages 
and, as a result, a mandatory, triggered bilingual label could 
discourage manufacturers from providing any bilingual information. In 
addition, NEMA suggested that a bilingual label may not be necessary 
for energy labeling because the FTC-required label displays data mostly 
in numbers.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose mandating bilingual 
light bulb labels. As discussed in the NPRM, Commission rules and 
guidance require certain non-English disclosures in advertisements and 
sales material if the language principally used in such material is not 
English. For several decades, the Commission has maintained that clear 
and conspicuous information disclosures mandated by rules, guides, and 
cease-and-desist orders should be displayed in the language principally 
used in the advertisement or sales material in question.\103\

    \103\ 16 CFR 14.9 (policy statement entitled, ``Requirements 
concerning clear and conspicuous disclosures in foreign language 
advertising and sales materials'') (see 38 FR 21494 (Aug. 4, 1973)); 
see also 16 CFR 610.4(a)(3)(ii) (mandatory disclosures about free 
credit reports must be made in same language as that principally 
used in the advertisement); 16 CFR 308.3(a)(1) (mandatory 
disclosures about pay-per-call services must be made in same 
language as that principally used in advertisement); 16 CFR 455.5 
(where used car sale conducted in Spanish, mandatory disclosures 
must be made in Spanish); 16 CFR 429.1(a) (in door-to-door sales, 
failure to furnish completed receipt or contract in same language as 
oral sales presentation is an unfair and deceptive act or practice).

    The comments offered no evidence that packages for products labeled 
with the FTC's energy labels convey consumer information principally in 
a language other than English. Although some packages present 
information in both English and another language, it appears that 
English remains the principal language on packaging. Additionally, the 
prominence of numerical disclosures on the energy labels (e.g., energy 
cost in dollars) should decrease the need for mandatory bilingual 
energy labels. The Commission is also concerned that triggered 
bilingual labels could dissuade manufacturers from providing bilingual 
information elsewhere on packaging. Accordingly, the Commission does 
not propose changing the Rule's current requirements. The Commission 
may revisit this issue should new concerns or information arise.

J. Television Labels Comparison Ranges

    Issue: In the January 6, 2013 NPRM, the Commission sought comment 
on whether to retain energy cost range information on television 
labels.\104\ In earlier comments, the Consumer Electronics Association 
(CEA) recommended eliminating television ranges, arguing that the data 
underlying the ranges quickly become obsolete.\105\

[[Page 34656]]

As a result, the estimated energy costs for many models fall outside 
the range depicted on the label, reducing utility. CEA also noted that 
consumers can rely on other sources, including consumer and trade 
publications and product reviews, to obtain comparative energy 

    \104\ 16 CFR 305.17(f).
    \105\ CEA comments (May 16, 2012) (560957-00012) 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabelamend/560957-00012-83006.pdf. EPCA grants the Commission discretion to include 
(or exclude) range information for television labels. 42 U.S.C. 
6294(c)(9). However, given recent issuance of a new DOE test 
procedure, manufacturers must submit energy data whether or not the 
label displays a range. 42. U.S.C. 6296(b)(4); see also 79 FR 19464 
(Apr. 9, 2014). CEA also asserted that the FTC labels should serve 
as the model for energy use disclosures in the North American 
market, including Mexico and Canada. However, CEA did not request 
that the FTC take any particular action with regard to this issue.

    Comments: In response to the January 6, 2013 NPRM, the Joint 
Commenters (563707-00005) opposed CEA's recommendation and 
strongly supported maintaining television ranges. According to the 
Joint Commenters, EPCA requires the Commission to provide range 
information on the label and no applicable statutory exemption exists 
to allow elimination of such information.\106\ They further argued that 
the ranges, even if narrowed due to improved efficiency, still help 
consumers compare the energy costs of competing recent models and 
understand that television usage affects energy costs. The Joint 
Commenters urged the Commission to address perceived problems with 
television labels by consolidating the range categories or updating the 
ranges more frequently.

    \106\ The Joint Commenters argued that ranges for televisions 
are mandatory under EPCA, citing a provision that requires labels 
that disclose ``information respecting the range of estimated annual 
operating costs for covered products to which the rule applies.'' 42 
U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). They asserted that, even if FTC were to interpret 
EPCA as providing authority to eliminate range information, it would 
be arbitrary to eliminate the range information because FTC has 
previously acknowledged its value in requiring online retailers to 
include it among their disclosures. 77 FR 15301.

    The Joint Commenters also recommended an increase in the size and 
prominence of the arrow indicating the model's relative location along 
the comparability range. The arrow denotes placement on the range and 
allows consumers to quickly gauge whether a model is efficient compared 
to similar models.
    Discussion: The Commission does not propose eliminating the 
television ranges or otherwise altering the label at this time.\107\ 
The Rule has required the television label for only a few years. It is 
premature to abandon the ranges without strong evidence supporting such 
a change and without further experience and information, including 
updated energy data. In addition, as commenters explained, the ranges 
continue to provide benefits by illustrating how individual models 
compare to others on the range, even if efficiency improvements have 
shifted those ranges somewhat. Likewise, the Commission does not 
propose enlarging the arrow on the label's comparability range. Unlike 
other EnergyGuide labels, the TV range graph resembles a thermometer, 
shaded black up to the point marking the model's energy cost. This 
graph's depiction, coupled with the arrow, clearly identifies where the 
model falls on the range. Accordingly, additional graphic enhancements 
are not necessary.\108\

    \107\ Contrary to the commenter assertions, EPCA grants the 
Commission discretion to include (or exclude) range information for 
television labels. Section 324(c)(9), titled ``Discretionary 
application,'' clearly states that the Commission may apply range 
information requirements to labels for certain covered products, 
including televisions. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(9) (``(9) Discretionary 
application.--The Commission may apply paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 
(5), and (6) of this subsection to the labeling of any product 
covered by paragraph (2)(I) or (6) of subsection (a)'').
    \108\ On April 9, 2014 (79 FR 19464), the Commission announced 
changes to its Rules, including reporting requirements, to conform 
to a new DOE test procedure. After the Commission reviews the new 
data, it will consider issuing updated comparability ranges for 
television labels.

K. Schedule for Range Revisions

    Background: In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether 
to update range and cost information more frequently than the five 
years required by 16 CFR 305.10(a). In earlier comments, several energy 
efficiency organizations suggested that the FTC adopt a three-year 
schedule to update national average energy cost and the comparison 
ranges for most products.\109\ They also recommended a two-year 
schedule for products with rapidly changing efficiencies and quicker 
sell-through periods, such as televisions. These commenters argued that 
the current schedule fails to keep pace with efficiency improvements. 
In January 2013, the Commission explained that the five-year schedule 
strikes a reasonable balance by providing appropriate updates without 
imposing overly frequent changes that lead to inconsistencies between 
showroom labels.\110\

    \109\ Joint Comments from Energy-Efficiency and Consumer 
Organizations (May 16, 2012) (560957-00015).
    \110\ See 78 FR 1779, 1781 (Jan. 6, 2013).

    Comments: In response to the NPRM, the comments presented 
conflicting views on the current update schedule. The efficiency groups 
(560957-00015) asserted that the five-year schedule results in 
labels that ``depict a false picture of the market.'' They argued the 
schedule violates EPCA's directive to include ``information respecting 
the range of estimated annual operating costs for covered products'' as 
well as EPCA's requirement that the labels be ``likely to assist 
consumers in making purchasing decisions.'' \111\ They also noted that 
that FTC annual data collection allows for more frequent updates.\112\

    \111\ See 42 U.S.C. 294(c)(1)(B) and 6294(c)(3).
    \112\ See 16 CFR 305.8. The groups also criticized the timing of 
the Commission's most recent round of updates (announced in 2012 and 
finalized in 2013) and delays to range and cost updates pending DOE 
test procedure changes for refrigerators, clothes washer, and 

    In lieu of the current five-year schedule, the efficiency groups 
recommended that the Commission update ranges whenever: (1) Multiple 
new products enter the market in a product subcategory not included in 
an existing range category, (2) more efficient products appear on the 
market, and (3) efficiency standards or ENERGY STAR specifications 
change. In the absence of such thresholds, the Joint Commenters 
suggested a three-year schedule for most products and a two-year 
schedule for those with rapidly changing efficiencies and quicker sell-
through periods. In addition, to help consumers compare labels bearing 
different range information, the Joint Commenters recommended the use 
of the transitional label recently adopted for refrigerators and 
clothes washers to address range and cost changes.\113\ Finally, should 
the Commission retain the current schedule, the Joint Commenters 
recommended disclosing the year the range information was collected and 
lengthening the range's endpoint (i.e., ``most efficient'' model) to 
provide space on the range for newer, more efficient models introduced 
in the future.

    \113\ 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013).

    In contrast, industry commenters supported the current approach. 
AHAM emphasized the need to minimize frequent label changes because 
inconsistent cost and range information can lead to consumer confusion 
and erode consumer confidence in the label. AHAM agreed with the 
Commission that a five-year schedule appropriately balances the need 
for consistent disclosures and the need for updates, while minimizing 
the burdens associated with frequent changes. AHRI argued that any 
revisions at this point would be premature, because the current 
schedule has been in place for only a few years. According to AHRI, 
industry members and consumers have not conveyed any significant 
concerns to its members about the EnergyGuide label ranges. AHRI 
further asserted that consumers recognized that the EnergyGuide label 
serves primarily as a comparative tool. In its view, the label's 
comparative information does not

[[Page 34657]]

change so dramatically over a five-year period that it warrants more 
frequent label changes. It also suggested that consumers understand the 
need to consider local energy costs when weighing home heating and 
cooling equipment purchases. Thus, fuel rate changes do not offer a 
reason to revise labels more frequently.
    Discussion: The Commission is not proposing changes to the update 
schedule for comparability ranges and fuel rates. In establishing the 
current five-year schedule, the Commission sought to strike a balance 
between maintaining consistent labels and providing updates to cost and 
range information. Though there are benefits to more frequent updates, 
the transition periods between such updates create inconsistent labels 
in the market, which can cause confusion, hamper comparison shopping, 
and reduce confidence in the label.\114\

    \114\ See 72 FR 49948, 49959 (Aug. 29, 2007) (discussing 
potential problems associated with frequent updates). In the past, 
the Commission has issued routine range updates without seeking 
comments. See, e.g., 67 FR 65310 (Oct. 24, 2002). However, as noted 
by commenters, the Commission has recently delayed range updates for 
several products types to synchronize new range and cost updates 
with other ongoing regulatory changes and avoid multiple label 
changes in a short time period. For example, the Commission coupled 
new ranges for dishwashers, room air conditioners, and water heaters 
with several label content changes, which required an opportunity 
for comment and thus additional time to promulgate. 78 FR 43974 
(July 23, 2013). In addition, the Commission plans to issue new 
ranges for refrigerators and clothes washers when the new DOE 
standards and test procedures become effective to avoid publishing 
short-lived ranges based on many models likely to become obsolete 
with the arrival of the new DOE standards. 78 FR 8362 (Feb. 6, 

    The current five-year interval ranges is consistent with past 
trends in market data. Over the years, model energy use has not always 
changed significantly from year to year across all product types and 
the product range endpoints have not always moved toward higher 
efficiency levels from year to year.\115\ For example, before 2007, the 
Commission reviewed model data every year and revised the ranges if 
they deviated 15% or more from the previous year. Using this approach, 
the Commission generally updated product ranges at about five-year 

    \115\ For example, from 2007 to 2012, the range for standard-
size clothes washers changed year to year as follows (normalized 
using 12 cents per kWh): $11-$80 (2007), $13-$60 (2008), $10-$75 
(2009), $9-$74 (2010), $9-$60 (2011), and $10-$61 (2012).
    \116\ 72 FR 49952.

    In addition, frequent fuel cost updates for the label can 
significantly impact label information during transition periods, 
making it difficult for consumers to compare new and old labels. 
Frequent fuel cost updates not only alter the range information but 
also the product's energy cost (the label's primary energy disclosure), 
and can inhibit comparisons with older labeled products generated with 
previous fuel rates.
    Though the Commission does not propose to alter the current 
schedule, the Rule gives the Commission discretion to change ranges and 
fuel rates more frequently. If parties identify ranges or fuel rate 
information that should be updated before the five-year period ends, 
they should alert the Commission so that it may consider whether to 
update the range.\117\

    \117\ The comments also suggest that the Commission deploy 
labels with special language to mitigate confusion during these 
transition periods. Although the Commission has created such labels 
in extraordinary circumstances (e.g., 78 FR 43974 (July 23, 2013) 
(refrigerator and clothes washer transition labels in response to 
significant changes to DOE test procedures and standards)), frequent 
use of such ``transitional'' labels is likely to lead to multiple 
versions of such labels in the market and ultimately result in 
substantial confusion.

    Finally, the Commission declines to adopt the recommendation to 
change ranges whenever a more efficient product enters the market, 
whenever DOE standards or test procedures change, or whenever a new 
product subcategory (e.g., a new refrigerator model type) enters the 
market. Doing so could lead to unnecessary updates and associated 
confusion during transition periods. Specifically, a trigger based on 
the introduction of more efficient products might yield insignificant 
range changes in cases where a single, slightly more efficient product 
arrives on the market. In addition, DOE test procedure amendments do 
not always yield significant changes in measured energy use. Lastly, 
new product subcategories do not necessarily warrant range changes 
because such new products may have little market presence or may have 
energy costs within existing ranges.\118\

    \118\ The Commission does not propose to include the range's 
date on the label. Indeed, the Commission recently amended the rule 
to eliminate references to fuel rate vintage on the label, 
explaining that such disclosures could cause confusion. For 
instance, a ``2007'' reference to a range or fuel rate on the label 
may incorrectly suggest to some consumers that the product itself 
was produced in 2007. See 43 FR 7843976. In addition, the Commission 
does not propose adding space to the label's range bar to reserve 
room for more efficient models because such a change to the range 
scale could be confusing to consumers.

L. Retailer Responsibility

    Background: Currently, the Rule prohibits retailers from removing 
labels or rendering them illegible,\119\ but does not otherwise require 
retailers to display labels at the points-of-sale. In 2011, when the 
Commission issued new label requirements for televisions, it declined 
to impose new retailer obligations, noting that the amendments for 
labels (both in stores and online) created a network of measures 
calculated to keep labels attached and visible on display models.\120\ 
The Commission, however, expressed willingness to revisit the issue at 
a later date.

    \119\ 16 CFR 305.4(a)(2).
    \120\ 76 FR 1038, 1047 (Jan. 6, 2011).

    Comments: In response to the 2012 regulatory review notice, the 
Joint Commenters (560957-00028) urged the Commission to hold 
retailers responsible for ensuring the label's presence on covered 
products sold in their stores. Their year long investigation found that 
labels on 55% of the appliances they observed were either missing, 
detached, obstructed, or otherwise not affixed in accordance with the 
Rule. They also found that, despite the Commission's recent measures to 
ensure the presence of television labels in showrooms, 50% of the 
televisions observed were missing labels. Accordingly, they recommended 
that the Commission hold retailers responsible for ensuring that labels 
are present on the products they sell.
    The Joint Commenters further opined that compliance with such a 
requirement is feasible. They argued that retailers would not face 
extraordinary obstacles matching EnergyGuide labels with the intended 
products, noting that retailers already manage point-of-sale materials 
for specific products, such as price and rebate information and Energy 
Star labels. Additionally, the Joint Commenters observed during site 
visits that some retailers appear to attach, reattach, or reprint 
missing labels. Indeed, the Joint Commenters argued that retailers are 
better situated than manufacturers to remedy lost, missing, or non-
compliant labels. In addition, citing a ``preliminary analysis'' of 
their investigative results, they argued that the identity of the 
retailer is most closely correlated with the rate of label compliance.
    AHAM also encouraged the Commission to address retailer 
responsibility, although it stopped short of supporting a new mandate 
(563707-00003). AHAM explained that manufacturers lose control 
over products after they leave the factory, and that retailers own the 
products they sell to consumers. Accordingly, AHAM argued that 
manufacturers should not be held responsible for missing labels on 
showroom floors.
    Discussion: The Commission plans to pursue improvements in label 
design to

[[Page 34658]]

increase label presence on showroom display models--as discussed in 
Section C of this document--before pursuing new responsibilities for 
retail stores. Recent store visits by FTC staff indicate that the new 
television labels, which must be adhesive, are more likely to remain on 
showroom models than labels on appliances. During the Spring of 2013, 
FTC staff observed more than 2,300 on-display televisions in 42 stores 
of six national retailers across nine regions.\121\ In contrast to the 
Joint Commenters' earlier findings, 81% of models displayed had labels 
present.\122\ Although FTC staff found that label presence varied 
across the retail stores visited, the variability between the observed 
retail chains was not large: between 75% and 87%. These findings 
suggest that improvements in label design and attachment methods alone, 
which the Commission now proposes for appliances (see Section II.C.), 
may be effective in significantly improving label presence.

    \121\ Although the staff visited a variety of stores and 
locations, the results of these visits are not necessarily 
nationally representative.
    \122\ Another one percent had a label that was not properly 
affixed or was otherwise unreadable.

    Retailers, however, can play an important role in ensuring that 
labels appear on covered products at the points-of-sale. Even if 
retailers do not create the labels, they can identify missing or 
obscured labels in their showrooms and replace them. Moreover, although 
label design and attachment improvements can raise the rate of label 
presence, they cannot guarantee it.\123\ At the same time, the burden 
on retailers of ensuring label presence may exceed the benefits. An 
affirmative retailer duty would require retailers stores to monitor 
product displays. Where labels are missing from display models, the 
retailer would have to find a properly-labeled replacement or obtain a 
substitute label. During the television rulemaking, the Consumer 
Electronics Retailers Coalition argued that requiring retailers to 
reaffix missing labels would cause ``chaos,'' because retailers would 
be unable to quickly match labels with products, increasing the risk of 
inaccurate labeling.\124\

    \123\ EPCA authorizes the Commission to ``prescribe labeling 
rules under this section applicable to all covered products,'' 
including rules governing label disclosures ``at the point of 
sale.'' See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1),(c)(3), and (c)(4); see also 42 
U.S.C. 6298 (authorizing the Commission to issue rules it ``deems 
necessary to carry out'' the law's provisions). The Commission 
imposes upon retailers affirmative obligations to display labels to 
customers for particular product categories. See, e.g., 16 CFR 
305.14(b)(2)(ii) (requiring retailers to show consumers the labels 
for covered central air conditioners, heat pumps, or furnaces prior 
to purchase); 16 CFR 305.19 (requiring retailers to make written 
disclosures at point-of-sale).
    \124\ See 76 FR 1047 (Jan. 7, 2011).

    It is premature to impose these costs and incur these risks when 
better label requirements and greater availability of online labels may 
alleviate the problem. The Commission, therefore, seeks further 
comment, particularly on improved label design and other approaches 
that could reduce the incidence of missing labels.

M. Marketplace Web Sites

    Background: The March 15, 2012 NPRM proposed requiring retail Web 
sites to display the full EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts label online. 
In January 2013, the Commission published final amendments to the 
Rule's catalog provision, requiring Web site sellers to display the 
label--either in full or as a logo icon with a hyperlink--for most 
covered products.\125\ This requirement applies to ``[a]ny 
manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler who advertises 
a covered product on an Internet Web site in a manner that qualifies as 
a catalog under this Part.'' \126\ The Rule defines ``catalog'' as 
``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.'' 

    \125\ See 78 FR 2209 (amending 16 CFR 305.20; effective January 
15, 2014). A limited set of covered products--showerheads, faucets, 
water closes, urinals, general service fluorescent lamps, 
fluorescent lamp ballasts, and metal halide lamp fixtures--can 
disclose specified information instead of displaying the EnergyGuide 
or Lighting Facts label. See id. (amending 16 CFR 305.20(a)(ii)).
    \126\ 16 CFR 305.20(a).
    \127\ 16 CFR 305.2(h).

    These amendments do not cover marketplace Web sites that serve as 
platforms for facilitating online product purchase by performing 
functions such as hosting sellers' advertising, matching buyers' 
searches to sellers' products, and processing payment and shipment 
directions.\128\ A marketplace Web site may not fit the definition of 
``retailer'' or ``distributor'' in the Rule if, for example, it does 
not take delivery or sale of the consumer products advertised and sold 
on its online platform. The Rule does not require such marketplace Web 
sites to either display or ensure the display of labels for covered 
products sold by third parties to consumers through their platforms. 
However, the Rule continues to apply to those third parties (retailers, 
manufacturers, distributors, and private labelers) that sell their 
products on such marketplace Web sites. The Rule also applies to the 
marketplace Web sites if they sell products as retailers through their 
own Web sites.\129\

    \128\ EPCA states that if a ``manufacturer or any distributor, 
retailer, or private labeler of such product advertises such product 
in a catalog from which it may be purchased, such catalog shall 
contain all information required to be displayed on the label, 
except as otherwise provided by rule of the Commission.'' 42 U.S.C. 
6296(a). EPCA defines a ``retailer'' as ``a person to whom a 
consumer 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,'' and a 
``distributor'' as ``a person (other than a manufacturer or 
retailer) to whom a consumer product is delivered or sold for 
purposes of distribution in commerce.'' It defines ``manufacturer'' 
as ``any person who manufactures a consumer product,'' and ``private 
labeler'' as ``an owner of a brand or trademark on the label of a 
consumer product, which bears a private label.'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(12)-
(15). The Rule's definitions of ``manufacturer,'' ``distributor,'' 
``retailer,'' and ``private labeler'' are consistent with EPCA's 
definitions. See 16 CFR 305.2.
    \129\ Taking physical possession of the product would likely 
render the marketplace Web site a ``retailer'' or ``distributor'' 
under EPCA and the Rule. See fn. 128, supra. Therefore, a product's 
delivery to a marketplace Web site's warehouse for temporary storage 
before proceeding in shipment to the consumer may trigger the 
marketplace Web site's responsibility for displaying the product's 
label online under the current Rule.

    Comments: The Joint Commenters (560957-00028) urged the 
Commission to amend the Rule to address marketplace Web sites. The 
Joint Commenters presented several arguments for this proposal. First, 
they contend that noncompliance with the Rule's labeling requirements 
is ``rampant'' on marketplace Web sites.\130\ Second, they argued that 
marketplace Web sites exercise ultimate control over the listings for 
products sold by third party sellers on their platforms, and should 
therefore be responsible for ensuring labeling. According to the Joint 
Commenters, marketplace Web sites generally require sellers to allow 
them to make any modifications to the listing, or remove it altogether, 
as a condition of selling products on their platforms. Sellers may 
submit proposed content (including price and shipping information) or 
seek removal of the listing, but the marketplace Web sites retain final 
authority over what appears in the listing. Third, the Joint Commenters 
argued that in light of marketplace Web sites' substantial control over 
listings, they are capable, if not best situated, to ensure label 
compliance for the products on their platforms. They noted that some 
marketplace Web sites already police other types of labeling and 
require listing preapproval for particular product categories. 
Therefore, they can

[[Page 34659]]

play the same gatekeeping function with energy labeling. Fourth, the 
Joint Commenters argued that it makes little sense to hinge liability 
for labeling compliance on whether a marketplace Web site takes 
delivery of a product. This distinction, according to the commenters, 
is irrelevant to EPCA's purpose of assisting consumers in making 
purchasing decisions. Finally, the Joint Commenters argued that neither 
EPCA nor the Communications Decency Act (``CDA'') prohibits the 
creation of a separate requirement for marketplace Web sites.\131\

    \130\ They presented findings from 2011 and 2012 product 
searches on two prominent marketplace Web sites, demonstrating 
noncompliance of over 90%.
    \131\ The CDA provides that ``[n]o provider or user of an 
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or 
speaker of any information provided by another information content 
provider.'' 47 U.S.C. 230(c).

    The Joint Commenters also requested that the Commission clarify 
that (i) the Rule applies to sellers who list covered products for sale 
on Web site catalogs, but do not take physical possession of products, 
and (ii) the Rule's term ``catalog'' includes: online product listings 
that require an additional click or mouse-over to reveal the product's 
retail price; product Web pages that allow the consumer to select 
different product options, such as color, before moving on to complete 
the purchase; and marketplace Web site listings that contain the terms 
of sale, retail price, and instructions for ordering, but that require 
consumers to click through to another Web site to complete the order.
    Discussion: The Commission is not proposing additional marketplace 
Web site requirements.\132\ The Rule already requires retailers, 
manufacturers, distributors, and private labelers that sell covered 
products on marketplace Web sites to display labels for those products. 
Therefore, an additional requirement aimed at marketplace Web sites 
would create a secondary layer of coverage. To be sure, such added 
coverage may improve the availability of label information to 
consumers. But it is not clear whether that potential benefit to 
consumers outweighs the potential burdens on marketplace Web sites, 
such as monitoring label presence and/or compliance. To aid its efforts 
to improve the Rule in the future, the Commission seeks further 
comments on the need for, and the burdens and benefits of, requiring 
marketplace Web sites to ensure label display for products sold on 
their platforms. Comments should address the current state of affairs 
for label presence among marketplace Web sites, the projected consumer 
benefits of requiring marketplace Web sites to ensure label display on 
their platforms, the projected costs, and the anticipated impact of 
this document's proposed requirement to list all electronic label 
images for public display on the DOE's CCMS online database.

    \132\ In addition, the Commission is not proposing changes to 
the catalog provisions because it is not clear such amendments are 
necessary to improve current requirements. Indeed, as part of the 
regulatory review, the Commission (78 FR 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013)) 
recently amended the Rule to require online retailers to post the 
labels ``clearly and conspicuously and in close proximity to the 
covered product's price on each Web page that contains a detailed 
description of the covered product and its price.'' 16 CFR 

N. Clothes Dryer Labels

    Background: When the Commission initially issued the energy 
labeling requirements in the 1979 Rule, it declined to label dryers, 
citing their limited annual energy cost range.\133\ At that time, the 
maximum annual energy cost difference between dryers was only $5. 
Therefore, the Commission concluded that the costs of testing and 
labeling would ``far outweigh the potential benefits'' of 

    \133\ Under EPCA, the Commission must prescribe labels for 
dryers unless it finds labeling would not be technologically or 
economically feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1).
    \134\ 44 FR 66469 (Nov. 19, 1979).

    Comments: The Joint Commenters (563707-00005) urged the 
Commission to require clothes dryer labels because three basic 
requirements for labeling now exist. First, DOE has established a test 
procedure. Second, clothes dryer labeling is ``just as economically and 
technically feasible as labeling other white goods, such as clothes 
washers, dishwashers and refrigerators.'' Finally, clothes dryer labels 
will assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. Specifically, the 
commenters explained that labeling will help consumer decisions because 
clothes dryers use significantly more energy than the majority of 
products in the labeling program, including about two to three times 
the energy as clothes washers. In addition, in their view, the absence 
of dryer labels creates the misimpression that dryer energy use is not 
significant. The commenters argued that a dryer label would help 
consumers by leading some to forgo or delay a dryer purchase (or washer 
and dryer) and instead hang-dry their clothes or use a laundromat; 
choose a less expensive unit to offset the energy costs; or use their 
dryer more efficiently. They also suggested that labels will help 
consumers by revealing significant energy cost differences between gas 
and electric models.
    The Joint Commenters acknowledged the small difference in energy 
costs between similar dryer models. However, they noted recent DOE 
amendments associated with an updated test procedure suggest a broader 
range of energy use among dryers than previously thought. In addition, 
the adoption of heat-pump dryers will lead to significantly more 
efficient models in the future. In both absolute and relative terms, 
they predicted efficiency differences among clothes dryer models will 
be greater than efficiency differences among existing subcategories for 
televisions and refrigerators.
    Alliance Laundry Systems (563707-00012) disagreed, arguing 
that the FTC should not require labels for a covered product simply 
because it uses large amounts of energy. Alliance explained that the 
range of energy use among competing dryers is narrow. Thus, labels 
would not aid consumer purchasing decisions. The Alliance also noted 
that the high purchase price for the new heat-pump clothes dryers will 
discourage consumers from purchasing such products even if they are 
more efficient than other models.
    Discussion: The Commission is not proposing to require labels for 
clothes dryers at this time. Recent DOE dryer information suggests that 
dryer efficiency varies little across available models. In fact, DOE 
testing indicates the difference in annual energy costs between the 
most efficient and least efficient electric models currently available 
is at most $11 per year.\135\ Although electric dryers using heat-pump 
technology will be more efficient than current models, few, if any, 
such models are currently available in the U.S.\136\

    \135\ See U.S. DOE, Technical Support Document (TSD) for Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 
Clothes Dryers and Room Air Conditioners; Direct Final Rule TSD, 
Table 8.2.26, available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007-BT-STD-0010-0053. The table indicates 
that the difference in annual energy use between the baseline model 
and the most efficient non-heat-pump dryer is 89 kWh. At energy 
prices of $0.12 per kWh, this is approximately $11 per year. 
Considering inflation, this spread is even smaller than the cost 
range identified by the Commission in 1979. In addition, DOE's data 
suggests that annual operating costs for these dryers is generally 
lower than $80.
    \136\ Further, while not dispositive to Commission's decision, 
we note that both heat-pump models and more efficient conventional 
models are significantly more expensive to manufacture and install. 
DOE estimates that, based on current costs, it would take decades 
(surpassing the likely product life) for the energy savings from an 
efficient dryer to cover its higher purchase price. TSD, Tables 

    Absent meaningful variation in energy usage, the Commission doubts 
that labeling would significantly aid consumer choices. Although some 
comments suggest that labels could induce consumers to hang dry their

[[Page 34660]]

clothes, it seems unlikely that labels will convince many consumers, 
already shopping for a clothes dryer, to hang dry their clothes instead 
of making a purchase. In addition, although a label would disclose the 
dryer's energy cost in absolute terms and perhaps illustrate the 
relative cost of different fuels, there is no evidence that such 
information would impact consumer decisions to purchase a model using a 
particular fuel type. Accordingly, consistent with the Commission's 
earlier conclusion with regard to dryers, labeling costs are likely to 
outweigh benefits to consumers. However, heat-pump or other more 
efficient electric dryers may become available in the U.S. market and 
offer a broader range of energy efficiency. In addition, as suggested 
by commenters, changes to the DOE test procedure may reveal greater 
differences among models not demonstrated by current testing methods. 
Should these or other developments occur, the Commission may revisit 
the issue.

O. Plumbing Products

    The Commission proposes two minor changes related to plumbing 
products. First, it proposes amendments to clarify that retail Web 
sites may hyperlink to flow rate information for the covered plumbing 
products they sell. Recent amendments to Section 305.20 allow online 
retailers to use a hyperlink to connect consumers to EnergyGuide and 
Lighting Facts labels for specific products, but do not specify how 
online sellers may link to required plumbing disclosures.\137\ The 
proposed amendment would allow sellers to connect consumers to flow 
rate information using a hyperlink labeled ``Water Usage.''

    \137\ 78 FR 2200 (Jan. 10, 2013).

    Second, the Commission proposes routine conforming changes to the 
Rule in response to DOE test procedure changes. On October 23, 2013, 
DOE announced changes to the testing procedures for residential 
plumbing products and amended some product definitions.\138\ In 
response, the Commission proposes a conforming change to the definition 
of ``showerhead'' in Part 305.

    \138\ 78 FR 62970 (Oct. 23, 2013).

III. Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to 
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 18, 2014. 
Write ``Energy Labeling Regulatory Review (16 CFR Part 305) (Matter No. 
R611004)'' on your comment. Your comment--including your name and your 
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, 
including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web 
site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 
discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact 
information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web 
    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security 
number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state 
identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, 
financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include 
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not 
include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information 
which is . . . privileged or confidential,'' as discussed in Sec.  6(f) 
of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 
4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive 
information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 
patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential 
treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for 
confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained 
in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept 
confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole 
discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the 
public interest.
    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/energyguidereview, by following the instruction on the web-based 
form. If this document appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also 
may file a comment through that Web site.
    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to 
the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), 
Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: 
Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 
400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 
20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by 
courier or overnight service.
    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this 
document and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws 
that the Commission administers permit the collection of public 
comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The 
Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that 
it receives on or before August 18, 2014. You can find more 
information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in 
the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.
    Because written comments appear adequate to present the views of 
all interested parties, the Commission has not scheduled an oral 
hearing regarding these proposed amendments. Interested parties may 
request an opportunity to present views orally. If such a request is 
made, the Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
stating the time and place for such oral presentation(s) and describing 
the procedures that will be followed. Interested parties who wish to 
present oral views must submit a hearing request, on or before July 8, 
2014, in the form of a written comment that describes the issues on 
which the party wishes to speak. If there is no oral hearing, the 
Commission will base its decision on the written rulemaking record.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 
reporting requirements that constitute information collection 
requirements as defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c), the definitional provision 
within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations that 
implement the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). OMB has approved the 
Rule's existing information collection requirements through May 31, 
2017 (OMB Control No. 3084 0069). The proposed amendments make changes 
in the Rule's labeling requirements that will increase the PRA burden 
as detailed below.\139\

[[Page 34661]]

Accordingly, the Commission will submit this Notice of proposed 
rulemaking and associated Supporting Statement to OMB for review under 
the PRA.\140\

    \139\ Several proposed labeling changes, including changes to 
label attachment methods, refrigerator ranges, URL links for labels, 
ceiling fan labels, and room air conditioners, should impose no 
additional burden beyond existing estimates because such changes 
either impose no or de minimis additional burdens or manufacturers 
should be able to incorporate the proposed changes into their 
normally scheduled package or label revisions.
    \140\ The PRA analysis for this rulemaking focuses strictly on 
the information collection requirements created by and/or otherwise 
affected by the amendments. Unaffected information collection 
provisions have previously been accounted for in past FTC analyses 
under the Rule and are covered by the current PRA clearance from 

    Package and Product Labeling (expanded lamp coverage): The proposed 
amendments require manufacturers to label several new bulb types. 
Accordingly, manufacturers will have to amend their package and product 
labeling to include new disclosures. The new requirements impose a one-
time adjustment for manufacturers. The Commission estimates that there 
are 50 manufacturers making approximately 3,000 of these newly covered 
products. This adjustment will require an estimated 600 hours per 
manufacturer on average.\141\ Annualized for a single year reflective 
of a prospective 3-year PRA clearance, this averages to 200 hours per 
year. Thus, the label design change will result in cumulative 
annualized burden of 10,000 hours (50 manufacturers x 200 hours). In 
estimating the associated labor cost, the Commission assumes that the 
label design change will be implemented by graphic designers at an 
hourly wage rate of $23.85 per hour based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 
information.\142\ Thus, the Commission estimates annual labor cost for 
this adjustment will total $238,500 (10,000 hours x $23.85 per hour).

    \141\ The Commission has increased its estimate of the hours 
required to make this change from earlier estimates given recent 
concerns raised about the burden of implementing label changes. See 
75 FR 81943 (Dec. 29, 2010).
    \142\ The above mean hourly wage and those that follow are drawn 
from Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Employment and Wages--May 2013, Table 1 (National 
employment and wage data from the Occupational Employment Statistics 
survey by occupation, May 2013), available at: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ocwage.t01.htm.

    Labeling (portable air conditioners): The proposed amendments 
require manufacturers to create and affix labels on these portable 
products.\143\ The amendments specify the content, format, and 
specifications of the required labels. Manufacturers would add only the 
energy consumption figures derived from testing and other product-
specific information. Consistent with past assumptions regarding 
appliances, FTC staff estimates that it will take approximately six 
seconds per unit to affix labels. Staff also estimates that there are 
1,000,000 portable air conditioner units distributed in the U.S. per 
year. Accordingly, the total disclosure burden per year for 
refrigeration products would be 1,667 hours (1,000,000 x 6 seconds). 
Assuming that product labels will be affixed by electronic equipment 
installers at an hourly wage of $23.50 per hour, cumulative associated 
labor cost would total $39,175 per year.

    \143\ Though the Rule allows manufacturers to incorporate the 
label onto their packaging (a less expensive labeling method), the 
Commission, for the purposes of this analysis, assumes 
conservatively that manufacturers will affix individual labels to 

    Testing (expanded lamp coverage): The Commission assumes 
conservatively that manufacturers will have to test 3,000 basic light 
bulb models out of an estimated 6,000 covered products. The Commission 
also assumes conservatively that testing will require 14 hours for each 
model for a total of 42,000 hours. In calculating the associated labor 
cost estimate, the Commission assumes that this work will be 
implemented by electrical engineers at an hourly wage rate of $44.89 
per hour. Thus, the Commission estimates that the proposed label design 
change will result in associated labor costs of approximately 
$1,885,380 (42,000 hours x $44.89 per hour).
    Testing (portable air conditioners): Manufacturers need not test 
each basic model annually; they must retest only if the product design 
changes in such a way as to affect energy consumption. Staff believes 
that the frequency with which models will be tested every year ranges 
roughly between 10% and 50%. It is likely that only a small portion of 
the tests conducted will be attributable to the proposed Rule's 
requirements. Nonetheless, given the lack of specific data on this 
point, the Commission conservatively assumes that all of the tests 
conducted would be attributable to the Rule's requirements and will 
apply to that assumption the high-end of the range noted above for 
frequency of testing. Based on an informal review of products offered 
on Web sites as well as consultation with DOE staff, staff estimates 
that there are approximately 150 basic models, that manufacturers will 
test two units per model, and that testing would require one hour per 
unit tested. Given these estimates and the above-noted assumption that 
50% of these basic models would be tested annually, testing would 
require 150 hours per year. Assuming further that this testing will be 
implemented by electrical engineers, and applying an associated hourly 
wage rate of $44.89 per hour, labor costs for testing would total 
    Recordkeeping (expanded lamp coverage): Pursuant to Section 305.21 
of the proposed amended Rule, manufacturers must keep test data on file 
for a period of two years after the production of a covered product 
model has been terminated. Assuming one minute per model and 3,000 
basic models, the recordkeeping burden would total 50 hours. Assuming 
further that these filing requirements will be implemented by data 
entry workers at an hourly wage rate of $15.28 per hour, the associated 
labor cost for recordkeeping would be approximately $764 per year.
    Recordkeeping (portable air conditioners): Pursuant to Section 
305.21 of the proposed amended Rule, manufacturers must keep test data 
on file for a period of two years after the production of a covered 
product model has been terminated. Assuming one minute per model and 
150 basic models, the recordkeeping burden would total 3 hours, rounded 
upward. Assuming further that these filing requirements will be 
implemented by data entry workers at an hourly wage rate of $15.28 per 
hour, the associated labor cost for recordkeeping would be 
approximately $46 per year.
    Reporting Requirements (portable air conditioners): In addition, 
the proposed labeling for these products would increase the Rule's 
reporting requirements. Staff estimates that the average reporting 
burden for these manufacturers is approximately two minutes per basic 
model to enter information into DOE's online database. Based on this 
estimate, multiplied by an estimated total of 150 basic portable air 
conditioners models, the annual reporting burden for manufacturers is 
an estimated 5 hours (2 minutes x 150 models / 60 minutes per hour). 
Assuming further that these filing requirements will be implemented by 
data entry workers at an hourly wage rate of $15.28 per hour, the 
associated labor cost for recordkeeping would be approximately $76 per 
year. Any non-labor costs associated with the reporting amendments are 
likely to be minimal. The Commission does not expect that the proposed 
amendments for portable air conditioners will create any capital or 
other non-labor costs for such testing.\144\

    \144\ There are no proposed reporting requirements for the 
expanded light bulb coverage.

    Catalog Disclosures (expanded light bulb coverage and portable air 
conditioners): The proposed amendments would require sellers

[[Page 34662]]

offering covered products through catalogs (both online and print) to 
disclose energy use for each light bulb and portable air conditioner 
model offered for sale. Because this information is supplied by the 
product manufacturers, the burden on the retailer consists of 
incorporating the information into the catalog presentation. FTC staff 
estimates that there are 200 online and paper catalogs for these 
products that would be subject to the Rule's catalog disclosure 
requirements. Staff additionally estimates that the average catalog 
contains approximately 100 such products and that entry of the required 
information takes one minute per covered product. The cumulative 
disclosure burden for catalog sellers is thus 1,000 hours (200 retailer 
catalogs x 300 products per catalog x 1 minute each per product shown). 
Assuming that the additional disclosure requirement will be implemented 
by data entry workers at an hourly wage rate of $15.28, associated 
labor cost would approximate $15,280 per year.
    Estimated annual non-labor cost burden (expanded lamp coverage): 
The Commission estimates that the annualized capital cost of expanding 
the light bulb label coverage is $1,535,000. This estimate is based on 
the assumptions that manufacturers will have to change 3,000 model 
packages over an approximate three-year period to meet the new 
requirements \145\ and that package label changes for each product will 
cost $1,335.\146\ Manufacturers place information on products in the 
normal course of business. Annualized in the context of a 3-year PRA 
clearance, these non-labor costs would average $1,335,000 (3,000 model 
packages x $1,335 each over 3 years. As for product labeling, the 
Commission assumes that the one-time labeling change will cost $200 per 
model for an annualized estimated total of $200,000 (3,000 models x 
$200 over 3 years). Annualized in the context of a 3-year PRA 
clearance, these non-labor costs would average $1,535,000.

    \145\ This assumes that manufacturers will change packages for 
one third of their products in the normal course of business each 
year. The multi-year compliance period (two and a half years) and 
the notice provided by this proceeding should minimize the 
likelihood that manufacturers will have to discard package 
inventory. In addition, manufacturers may use stickers in lieu of 
discarding inventory.
    \146\ See 75 FR 41712 n. 149 and accompanying text.

    Estimated annual non-labor cost burden (portable air conditioners): 
Manufacturers are not likely to require any significant capital costs 
to comply with the proposed portable air conditioner amendments. 
Industry members, however, will incur the cost of printing labels for 
each covered unit. The estimated label cost, based on estimates of 
1,000,000 units and $.03 per label, is $30,000 (1,000,000 x $.03).
    Total Estimate: Accordingly, the revised estimated total hour 
burden of the proposed amendments is 54,875 with associated labor costs 
of $2,185,955 and annualized capital or other non-labor costs totaling 
    Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites 
comments on: (1) Whether the proposed information collection is 
necessary, including whether the information will be practically 
useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the 
methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 
(4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information. All 
comments should be filed as prescribed in the ADDRESSES section above, 
and must be received on or before August 18, 2014. Comments on the 
proposed recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting requirements subject 
to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If 
sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: 
Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office 
Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, 
DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are 
subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, 
comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5167.

V. 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. However, the Commission does not expect that the economic 
impact of the proposed amendments will be significant.
    The Commission estimates that the amendments will apply to about 75 
light bulb manufacturers and an additional 150 online and paper catalog 
sellers of covered products. The Commission expects that approximately 
150 qualify as small businesses.
    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 document 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

    The Commission is proposing expanded product coverage and 
additional improvements to the Rule to help consumers in their 
purchasing decisions for high efficiency products.

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

    The objective of the rule is to improve the effectiveness of the 
current labeling program. The legal basis for the Rule is the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6292 et seq).

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply

    Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small 
Business Administration, appliance manufacturers qualify as small 
businesses if they have fewer than 1,000 employees (for other household 
appliances the figure is 500 employees). Catalog sellers qualify as 
small businesses if their sales are less than $8.0 million annually. 
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 150 entities 
subject to the proposed rule's requirements that qualify as small

[[Page 34663]]

businesses.\147\ 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.

    \147\ See 75 FR 41712.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

    The changes under consideration would slightly increase reporting 
or recordkeeping requirements associated with the Commission's labeling 
rules as discussed above. The amendments likely will increase 
compliance burdens by extending the labeling requirements to new types 
of light bulbs and air conditioners. The Commission assumes that the 
label design change will be implemented by graphic designers.

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 

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission seeks comment and information on the need, if any, 
for alternative compliance methods that, consistent with the statutory 
requirements, would reduce the economic impact of the rule on small 
entities. For example, in proposing to extend the bulb coverage, the 
Commission is currently unaware of the need to adopt any special 
provision for small entities to be able to take advantage of the 
proposed extension or exemption, where applicable. However, if such 
issues are identified, the Commission could consider alternative 
approaches such as extending the effective date of these amendments for 
catalog sellers to allow them additional time to comply beyond the 
labeling deadline set for manufacturers. Nonetheless, if the comments 
filed in response to this document 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.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 

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

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

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

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission proposes to amend 
part 305 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:


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

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

2. In Sec.  305.3, revise paragraph (j) and (r), and add paragraph (z) 
to read as follows:

Sec.  305.3  Description of covered products.

* * * * *
    (j) Fluorescent lamp ballast means a device which is used to start 
and operate fluorescent lamps by providing a starting voltage and 
current and limiting the current during normal operation.
* * * * *
    (r) Showerhead means a component or set of components distributed 
in commerce for attachment to a single supply fitting, for spraying 
water onto a bather, typically from an overhead position, excluding 
safety shower showerheads.
* * * * *
    (z) Specialty consumer lamp means:
    (1) Any lamp that--
    (i) Is not included under the definition of general service lamp in 
this part;
    (ii) Has a lumen range between 310 lumens and no more than 2,600 
lumens or a rated wattage between 30 and 199;
    (iii) Has one of the following bases:
    (A) A medium screw base;
    (B) An intermediate screw base;
    (C) A candelabra screw base;
    (D) A GU-10 base; or
    (E) A GU-24 base; and
    (iv) Is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least 
partially within 110 and 130 volts.
    (2) Inclusions. The term specialty consumer lamp includes, but is 
not limited to, the following lamps if such lamps meet the conditions 
listed in paragraph (z)(1) of this section:
    (i) Vibration-service lamps as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(AA);
    (ii) Rough service lamps as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(X);
    (iii) Appliance lamps as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(T);
    (iv) Plant light lamps; and
    (iv) Shatter-resistant lamps (including a shatter-proof lamp and a 
shatter-protected lamp) as defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(Z).
    (3) Exclusions. The term specialty consumer lamp does not include:
    (i) A black light lamp;
    (ii) A bug lamp;
    (iii) A colored lamp;
    (iv) An infrared lamp;
    (v) A left-hand thread lamp;
    (vi) A marine lamp;
    (vii) A marine signal service lamp;
    (viii) A mine service lamp;
    (ix) A sign service lamp;
    (x) A silver bowl lamp;
    (xi) A showcase lamp;
    (xii) A traffic signal lamp;
    (xiii) A G-shape lamp with diameter of 5 inches or more;
    (xiv) A C7, M-14, P, RP, S, or T shape lamp.
3. In Sec.  305.7, revise paragraph (d) and (f) to read as follows:

Sec.   305.7 Determinations of Capacity

* * * * *
    (d) Water heaters. The capacity shall be the first hour rating (for 
storage-type models) and gallons per minute (for instantaneous-type 
models), as determined according to appendix E to 10 CFR part 430, 
subpart B.
* * * * *
    (f) Room air conditioners. The capacity shall be the cooling 
capacity in Btu's per hour, as determined according to appendix F to 10 
CFR part 430, subpart B, but rounded to the nearest value ending in 
hundreds that will satisfy the relationship that the value of CEER used 
in representations equals the rounded value of capacity divided by the 
value of input power in watts. If a value ending in hundreds will not 
satisfy this relationship, the capacity may be rounded to the nearest 
value ending in 50 that will.
* * * * *
4. In Sec.  305.8, paragraph (a)(3) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  305.8  Submission of data.

    (a) * * *
    (3) This section does not require reports for general service 
light-emitting diode (LED or OLED) lamps or specialty consumer lamps.
* * * * *
5. In Sec.  305.11, paragraphs (c), (d) introductory text, and (d)(2) 
are revised,

[[Page 34664]]

and paragraph (d)(3) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  305.11  Labeling for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, 
freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, water heaters, room air 
conditioners, and pool heaters.

* * * * *
    (c) Colors. Unless otherwise stated in this paragraph, 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. 
Room air conditioner labels printed on packaging may be printed with a 
color contrasting background other than yellow.
    (d) Label types. Except as indicated in (d)(3) of this section, the 
labels must be affixed to the product in the form of an adhesive label 
or a hang tag as follows:
* * * * *
    (2) Hang Tags. Labels may be affixed to the product in the form of 
a hang tag using cable ties, double strings connected through 
reinforced punch holes, or material with equivalent or greater 
strength. The paper stock for hang tags shall have a basic weight of 
not less than 110 pounds per 500 sheets (25 \1/2\ ''x30 \1/2\ '' 
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.
    (3) Labels for room air conditioners. Labels for room air 
conditioners shall be printed on or affixed to the principal display 
panel of the product's packaging.
* * * * *
6. Amend Sec.  305.12, to revise paragraph (f) to read as follows, 
remove paragraph (i)(4), and redesignate paragraphs (i)(5) through 
(i)(14) as (i)(4) through (i)(13):

Sec.  305.12  Labeling for central air conditioners, heat pumps, and 

* * * * *
    (f) Content of labels for furnaces. Content of labels for non-
weatherized furnaces, mobile home furnaces, electric furnaces, and 
boilers manufactured before the compliance date of regional efficiency 
standards issued by the Department of Energy in 10 CFR part 430 for 
non-weatherized, and mobile home furnaces and content of labels for 
weatherized furnaces manufactured before the compliance date of 
regional efficiency standards for split-system air conditioners issued 
by the Department of Energy in 10 CFR part 430.
    (1) Headlines and texts, as illustrated in the prototype and sample 
labels in appendix L 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) The model's basic model number.
    (4) The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) for furnace 
models as determined in accordance with Sec.  305.5.
    (5) Ranges of comparability consisting of the lowest and highest 
annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) ratings for all furnaces of 
the model's type consistent with the sample labels in appendix L.
    (6) Placement of the labeled product on the scale shall be 
proportionate to the lowest and highest annual fuel utilization 
efficiency ratings forming the scale.
    (7) The following statement shall appear in bold print on furnace 
labels adjacent to the range(s) as illustrated in the sample labels in 
appendix L: For energy cost info, visit productinfo.energy.gov.
    (8) The following statement shall appear at the top of the label as 
illustrated in the sample labels in appendix L: Federal law prohibits 
removal of this label before consumer purchase.
    (9) 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 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 
label for certified products in a location consistent with the sample 
labels in appendix L. The logo must be no larger than 1 inch by 3 
inches in size. Only manufacturers that have signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Department of Energy or the Environmental 
Protection Agency may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels on 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.
    (10) Manufacturers of boilers shipped with more than one input 
nozzle to be installed in the field must label such boilers with the 
AFUE of the system when it is set up with the nozzle that results in 
the lowest AFUE rating.
    (11) Manufacturers that ship out boilers that may be set up as 
either steam or hot water units must label the boilers with the AFUE 
rating derived by conducting the required test on the boiler as a hot 
water unit.
    (12) Manufacturers of oil furnaces must label their products with 
the AFUE rating associated with the furnace's input capacity set by the 
manufacturer at shipment. The oil furnace label may also contain a 
chart, as illustrated in sample label 9B in appendix L, indicating the 
efficiency rating at up to three additional input capacities offered by 
the manufacturer. Consistent with paragraph (f)(9)(iii) of this 
section, labels for oil furnaces may include the ENERGY STAR logo only 
if the model qualifies for that program on all input capacities 
displayed on the label.
* * * * *
7. In Sec.  305.13, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  305.13  Labeling for ceiling fans.

    (a) Ceiling fans. (1) Content. Any covered product that is a 
ceiling fan shall be labeled clearly and conspicuously on the package's 
principal display panel with the following information on the label 
consistent with the sample label in Appendix L to this part:
    (i) Headlines, including the title ``EnergyGuide,'' and text as 
illustrated in the sample labels in Appendix L to this part;
    (ii) The product's estimated yearly energy cost based on 6 hours 
use per day and 12 cents per kWh;
    (iii) The product's airflow at high speed expressed in cubic feet 
per minute and determined pursuant to Sec.  305.5 of this part;
    (iv) The product's energy use at high speed expressed in watts and 
determined pursuant to Sec.  305.5 of this part as indicated in the 
sample label in appendix L of this part;
    (v) The statement ``Your cost depends on rates and use'';
    (vi) The statement ``All estimates at high speed, excluding 

[[Page 34665]]

    (vii) The statement ``the higher the airflow, the more air the fan 
will move;''
    (viii) The statement ``Airflow Efficiency: ----Cubic Feet Per 
Minute Per Watt'''';
    (ix) The address ftc.gov/energy;
    (x) For fans fewer than 49 inches in diameter, the label shall 
display a cost range for 36'' to 48'' ceiling fans of $2 to $53.'';
    (xi) For fans 49 inches or more in diameter, the label shall 
display a cost range for 49'' to 60'' ceiling fans of $3 to $29.''; and
    (xii) The ENERGY STAR logo as illustrated on the ceiling fan label 
illustration in Appendix L for qualified products, if desired by the 
manufacturer. Only manufacturers that have signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Department of Energy or the Environmental 
Protection Agency may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels on qualifying 
covered products; such manufacturers may add the ENERGY STAR logo to 
labels only on those products that are covered by the Memorandum of 
    (2) Label size, color, and text font. The label shall be four 
inches wide and three inches high. The label colors shall be process 
black text on a process yellow background. The text font shall be Arial 
or another equivalent font. The label's text size, format, content, and 
the order of the required disclosures shall be consistent with ceiling 
fan label illustration of appendix L of this part.
    (3) Placement. The ceiling fan label shall be printed on or affixed 
to the principal display panel of the product's packaging.
    (4) Additional information. No marks or information other than that 
specified in this part shall appear on this label, except a model name, 
number, or similar identifying information.
* * * * *
8. In Sec.  305.15, redesignate paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
paragraphs (e), (f), (g), and (h); add new paragraphs (c) and (d); and 
revise paragraph (b) introductory text and newly redesignated 
paragraphs (f)(1) and (4) to read as follows:

Sec.  305.15  Labeling for lighting products.

* * * * *
    (b) General service lamps. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of 
this section, any covered product that is a general service lamp shall 
be labeled as follows:
* * * * *
    (c) Specialty consumer lamps. (1) Any specialty consumer lamp that 
is a vibration-service lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291, rough service 
lamp as defined at 42 U.S.C. 6291(30), appliance lamp as defined at 42 
U.S.C. 6291(30), plant light lamp; or shatter resistant lamp (including 
a shatter proof lamp and a shatter protected lamp) must be labeled 
pursuant to the requirements in paragraph (b).
    (2) Specialty Lighting Facts Label Content. All specialty consumer 
lamps not covered by paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be labeled 
either in according with paragraph (b) of this section or as follows:
    (i) The principal display panel of the product package shall be 
labeled clearly and conspicuously with the following information 
consistent with the Prototype Label ---- in Appendix L:
    (A) The light output of each lamp included in the package, 
expressed as ``Brightness'' in average initial lumens rounded to the 
nearest five; and
    (B) The estimated annual energy cost of each lamp included in the 
package, expressed as ``Estimated Energy Cost'' in dollars and based on 
usage of 3 hours per day and 11 cents ($0.11) per kWh.
    (C) The life, as defined in Sec.  305.2(w), of each lamp included 
in the package, expressed in years rounded to the nearest tenth (based 
on 3 hours operation per day);
    (ii) If the lamp contains mercury, the principal display panel 
shall contain the following statement:
    ``Contains Mercury For more on clean up and safe disposal, visit 
    The manufacturer may also print an ``Hg[Encircled]'' symbol on 
package after the term ``Contains Mercury.''
    (iii) If the lamp contains mercury, the lamp shall be labeled 
legibly on the product with the following statement: ``Mercury 
disposal: epa.gov/cfl'' in minimum 8 point font.
    (4) Standard Lighting Facts label format. Information specified in 
paragraph (c)(3) of this section shall be presented on covered lamp 
packages in the format, terms, explanatory text, specifications, and 
minimum sizes as shown in Prototype Labels ---- in appendix L and 
consistent in format and orientation with Sample Labels in appendix L. 
The text and lines shall be all black or one color type, printed on a 
white or other neutral contrasting background whenever practical.
    (i) The Lighting Facts information shall be set off in a box by use 
of hairlines and shall be all black or one color type, printed on a 
white or other neutral contrasting background whenever practical.
    (ii) All information within the Lighting Facts label shall utilize:
    (A) Arial or an equivalent type style;
    (B) Upper and lower case letters;
    (C) Leading as indicated in Prototype Label ---- in appendix L;
    (D) Letters that never touch;
    (E) The box and hairlines separating information as illustrated in 
Prototype Labels ---- in appendix L; and
    (F) The minimum font sizes and line thicknesses as illustrated in 
Prototype Label ---- in appendix L.
    (4) Bilingual labels. The information required by paragraphs (c) of 
this section may be presented in a second language either by using 
separate labels for each language or in a bilingual label with the 
English text in the format required by this section immediately 
followed by the text in the second language. All required information 
must be included in both languages. Numeric characters that are 
identical in both languages need not be repeated.
    (d) For lamps that do not meet the definition of general service 
lamp or specialty consumer lamp, manufacturers and private labelers 
have the discretion to label with the Lighting Facts label as long as 
they comply with all requirements applicable to specialty consumer 
* * * * *
    (f)(1) The required disclosures of any covered product that is a 
general service lamp or specialty consumer 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, energy cost, and life ratings shall in each instance be:
* * * * *
    (4) For any covered product that is a general service lamp or 
specialty consumer lamp and operates at discrete, multiple light levels 
(e.g., 800, 1600, and 2500 lumens), the light output, energy cost, and 
wattage disclosures required by this section must be provided at each 
of the lamp's levels of light output and the lamp's life provided on 
the basis of the shortest lived operating mode. The multiple numbers 
shall be separated by a ``/'' (e.g., 800/1600/2500 lumens) if they 
appear on the same line on the label.
* * * * *
9. Revise paragraph (a)(1)(ii) introductory text of Sec.  305.20 to 
read as follows:

Sec.  305.20  Paper catalogs and Web sites.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Products not required to bear EnergyGuide or Lighting Facts 
labels. All Web sites advertising covered showerheads, faucets, water 
closets, urinals, general service fluorescent lamps, fluorescent lamp 
ballasts, and metal halide lamp fixtures must include the following 
disclosures for each

[[Page 34666]]

covered product. For plumbing products, the Web site may hyperlink to 
the disclosures using a prominent link labeled ``Water Usage.''
* * * * *
10. Revise Appendices G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, and G8 to read as 

Appendix G1 to Part 305--Furnaces--Gas

                                               Range of annual fuel
                                             utilization efficiencies
              Furnace type                            (AFUEs)
                                                Low            High
Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces--All                   80.0            98.5
Weatherized Gas Furnaces Manufactured               78.0            96.6
 Before the Compliance Date of DOE
 Regional Standards--All Capacities.....
Weatherized Gas Furnaces Manufactured              ----*           ----*
 After the Compliance Date of DOE
 Regional Standards--All Capacities.....
* to be announced.

Appendix G2 to Part 305--Furnaces--Electric

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies  (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Electric Furnaces--All Capacities.....           100.0            100.0

Appendix G3 to Part 305--Furnaces--Oil

                                               Range of annual fuel
                                             utilization efficiencies
                  Type                                (AFUEs)
                                                Low            High
Non-Weatherized Oil Furnaces--All                   83.0            95.4
Weatherized Oil Furnaces Manufactured               78.0            86.1
 Before the Compliance Date of DOE
 Regional Standards--All Capacities.....
Weatherized Oil Furnaces Manufactured              ----*           ----*
 After the Compliance Date of DOE
 Regional Standards--All Capacities.....
* to be announced

Appendix G4 to Part 305--Mobile Home Furnaces--Gas

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies  (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Mobile Home Gas Furnaces--All                     80.0             96.5

Appendix G5 to Part 305--Mobile Home Furnaces--Oil

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies  (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Mobile Home Oil Furnaces--All                     75.0             86.6

[[Page 34667]]

Appendix G6 to Part 305--Boilers (Gas)

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Gas Boilers--All Capacities...........            80.0             98.0

Appendix G7 to Part 305--Boilers (Oil)

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Oil Boilers Manufactured--All                     82.0             96.0

Appendix G8 to Part 305--Boilers (Electric)

                                        Range of annual fuel utilization
                                              efficiencies (AFUEs)
                 Type                  ---------------------------------
                                              Low              High
Electric Boilers......................             100              100

11. Amend appendix L by adding the image ``Sample Ceiling Fan Label'' 
to the end of the appendix to read as follows:

[[Page 34668]]

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
[FR Doc. 2014-14058 Filed 6-17-14; 8:45 am]