Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy Act; Final Rule FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Federal RegisterJul 1, 1994
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') announces
amendments to 16 CFR Part 305, hereinafter referred to as ``the
Appliance Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''. The Commission initiated
this rulemaking to address issues raised by Commission staff and
interested parties during the course of rule enforcement since 1980.
Some amendments are to the format of the required EnergyGuide labels.
Other amendments will require product-specific labels on furnaces; give
furnace manufacturers the option of disclosing additional energy usage
information on fact sheets or in an industry directory; modify the sub-
categories used in connection with the ranges of comparability for
certain products; require the disclosure of different energy usage
descriptors for some product categories; change the specifications for
label adhesion strength; and modify the Rule in certain other minor
respects.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 28, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Mills, Attorney, 202-326-3035,
Enforcement Division, FTC, Washington, D.C. 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On March 5, 1993, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``the 1993 NPR'') proposing changes to the Rule.\1\ Some of
the Commission's proposals in the 1993 NPR were based on comments
submitted in response to an earlier Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
published on June 13, 1988 (``the 1988 NPR''), proposing changes to the
Rule.\2\ The Commission initiated this rulemaking in 1988 because
various interested persons had asked the Commission to consider
modifications to the Rule since it became effective on May 19, 1980.\3\
The 1988 NPR invited comment on a number of suggestions interested
persons had proposed, including the effect of the National Appliance
Energy Conservation Act (``NAECA 87'')\4\ appliance efficiency
standards, and a proposal to exempt from coverage certain unvented
space heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\58 FR 12818. The Commission's Rule is codified at 16 CFR Part
305.
\2\53 FR 22106.
\3\The Commission also had received comments during the review
of the Rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act regarding ways to
modify the Rule. The Commission announced the completion of the
review of the Rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) in the Federal Register on June 13, 1988, at 53 FR
22022.
\4\The National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (``NAECA
87''), Pub. L. 100-12, 101 Stat. 103 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1993 NPR addressed certain issues and proposed amendments that
had not been raised in the 1988 NPR, such as changes in the form and
substance of the EnergyGuide labels, proposals to update the Rule in
light of changes in related Department of Energy (``DOE'') regulations,
and changes in the energy efficiency descriptor nomenclature. The
Commission also allowed comment on the other proposed amendments that
had been subject to prior comment. The Commission requested in the 1993
NPR that any such additional comments be in the nature of rebuttal
comments identifying analytical flaws or misunderstandings, rather than
repetitions of earlier comments. Finally, in accordance with a
statutory directive, the Commission invited comment on whether metric
terms should be included in certain Rule provisions.
Parts III and IV, below, discuss the issues on which comments were
sought, the comments the Commission received, and the responsive
amendments the Commission has adopted. Part V discusses new issues
raised by the most recent round of comments; Part VI addresses the
comments on the use of metric terms in connection with certain of the
Rule's requirements; and Parts VII and VIII discuss the requirements of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act,
respectively. The amended Rule sections appear in ``Text of
Amendments.''
II. Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (``EPCA''),\5\ as
amended, requires the Commission to prescribe labeling rules for the
disclosure of estimated annual energy cost or alternative energy
consumption information for the following products: (1) Refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; (2) room air conditioners; (3)
central air conditioners and heat pumps; (4) water heaters; (5)
furnaces; (6) dishwashers; (7) clothes washers; (8) clothes dryers; (9)
direct heating equipment; (10) kitchen ranges and ovens; (11) pool
heaters; (12) television sets; (13) fluorescent lamp ballasts; (14)
specified lamp products; (15) showerheads, except safety shower
showerheads; (16) faucets; (17) water closets; (18) urinals; and (19)
any other type of product that the Department of Energy (``DOE'')
classifies as a covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6292(a); 6294(a)(1), (2)(A-
E). For products in categories (1) through (12) and (19), the
Commission is not required to prescribe labeling rules until DOE has
prescribed test procedures to measure the energy use of a particular
covered product. 42 U.S.C. 6294(b)(3). Moreover, the Commission may
exempt from the Rule products in categories:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Pub. L. 94-163, 89 Stat. 871 (1975), as amended by the
National Energy Conservation Policy Act, Pub. L. 95-619, 92 Stat.
3258, (1978), the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, Pub.
L. 100-12, 101 Stat 103 (1987), the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Amendments of 1988, Pub. L. 100-357, 102 Stat. 671
(1988), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-486, 106
Stat. 2776 (1992), 42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq. The Commission is
currently considering whether to include pool heaters as covered
products under the Rule. 58 FR 7852 (Feb. 9, 1993). The products in
categories (14)-(18) were recently added to the list of covered
products in EPCA by the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C.A.
6292(a)(14)-(18) (West Supp. 1993). The Commission amended the Rule
to address products in categories (15)-(18) on October 25, 1993 (58
FR 54955) and products in category (14) on May 13, 1994 (58 FR
25176).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 through 12 if it determines that labeling is
not technologically or economically feasible, 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1);
and,
(b) 3, 5 and 7 if labeling is not technologically or economically
feasible or not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions, 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(A).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\There is an additional exemption provision for lamps that is
not pertinent to this analysis. See 42 U.S.C.A. 6294(a)(2)(C)(ii)
(West Supp. 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to products in categories (1) through (12) and (19),
EPCA states that the Commission must require the labels to disclose the
estimated annual operating cost of such products, as determined by DOE
test procedures, unless DOE determines that disclosure of estimated
annual operating costs is not technologically feasible, or the
Commission determines that such disclosure is not likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically
feasible. If DOE or the Commission makes these determinations, then the
Commission must require disclosure of a different useful measure of
energy consumption, as determined in accordance with DOE test
procedures. 42 U.S.C. 6294(c).
On November 19, 1979 the Commission issued a final Rule covering
seven appliance categories then covered by DOE test procedures:
refrigerators and refrigerator freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water
heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and furnaces.\7\ The
Rule subsequently was amended to cover central air conditioners and air
conditioning heat pumps, fluorescent lamp ballasts, plumbing products,
and lamps.\8\ For most product categories, the Rule requires that
annual operating costs in dollars and related information be disclosed
on labels, called EnergyGuides, and in retail sales catalogs. For three
categories (room air conditioners, furnaces, and central air
conditioners (including heat pumps)), in which usage cycles depend on
disparate climate conditions across the U.S. and an ``average'' energy
cost would be irrelevant to many consumers (and therefore not likely to
assist in making purchasing decisions), the required disclosure is the
energy efficiency rating (``EER'').\9\ For room and central air
conditioners, the EERs must be disclosed on labels; for furnaces, the
EERs must be disclosed on fact sheets.\10\ Corresponding cost
information must be disclosed on the label for room air conditioners,
on fact sheets for furnaces, and on fact sheets or in an industry
directory for central air conditioners.\11\ In addition, certain point-
of-sale promotional materials must disclose the availability of energy
cost or energy efficiency rating information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\16 CFR Part 305. The Statement of Basis and Purpose (``SBP'')
for the Rule describes why the Commission exempted the other
categories. 44 FR at 66467-69.
\8\52 FR 46888 (Dec. 10, 1987) (air conditioners and heat
pumps); 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989) (lamp ballasts; pursuant to the
National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988, the Rule
requires these products to bear a capital letter ``E'' to show that
they meet the statute's minimum energy efficiency standards, rather
than the information the Rule requires for other product
categories); 58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993) (showerheads, faucets,
water closets and urinals; water usage, rather than energy usage,
must be disclosed for these products); 58 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994)
(general service incandescent lamps including incandescent reflector
lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and general service fluorescent
lamps).
\9\When promulgating the test procedures, DOE, as required by
EPCA, developed two measures of energy consumption for each
appliance category; (1) estimated dollar cost of operation, and (2)
the energy factor, a measure of the useful output of an appliance's
services divided by the energy input. For climate control equipment,
under the Rule, the energy factor currently must be referred to as
the ``EER'' (energy efficiency rating). As discussed in Part
IV.B.3., below, however, the Commission is amending the Rule so that
the acronyms used in the DOE tests and by the industry (``SEER,''
AFUE,'' ``HSPF,'' etc.) instead must be used in advertising as well
as on fact sheets and labels.
\10\As discussed in Part IV.A.2., below, however, the Commission
is amending the Rule to require labels for furnaces to disclose
product-specific information and a range of energy usage for all
furnaces using the same fuel as the labeled model.
\11\As discussed in Part IV.A.2., below, the Commission is
amending the Rule to permit manufacturers of furnaces, like
manufacturers of central air conditioners, to disclose the
additional information in an industry directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Issues Discussed in the 1993 NPR
The 1993 NPR solicited comments on two sets of issues. The first
set included proposals on which the Commission had sought comment in
the 1988 NPR and about which the Commission had reached tentative
conclusions. The 1993 NPR summarized the comments received in response
to the 1988 NPR and explained the Commission's tentative conclusions.
For these proposals, listed below, the 1993 NPR solicited only limited
rebuttal comments:
(1) The effect of the implementation of NAECA 87 on the Rule;
(2) Proposed amendments to the requirements for furnaces;
(3) Proposed amendments to the requirements for central air
conditioners;
(4) Proposed amendments to change the sub-categories on which
ranges of comparability are based for room air conditioners;
(5) Proposed amendments to change the sub-categories on which
ranges of comparability are based for certain other products;
(6) Proposed amendments to change the energy usage descriptor for
several products from dollars to an alternate descriptor;
(7) Proposed changes to the label adhesion strength requirements;
(8) An industry suggestion to label only display models in retail
outlets;
(9) A proposal to extend the ``directory option'' to manufacturers
of water heaters; and,
(10) A proposal to label certain unvented heaters.
The 1993 NPR also solicited comments on a second group of
proposals, listed below, that had not been previously discussed in the
1988 NPR:
(1) An industry proposal to exempt central air conditioners from
labeling requirements;
(2) Minor revisions to update and improve the Rule;
(3) Using, in lieu of the term ``EER,'' the industry terms
``AFUE,'' ``SEER,'' and ``HSPF'' as the required descriptors of the
energy usage of climate control products; and,
(4) Changing the format of the required EnergyGuide labels.
The 1993 NPR also solicited comment on whether the Commission
should require metric measurements. Finally, to obtain information
relating to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and Paperwork Reduction Act,
the 1993 NPR asked about the effect of the proposed amendments on small
businesses and the burden of the Rule's reporting and recordkeeping
provisions.
In accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6306(a), the 1993 NPR afforded
interested persons the opportunity to present their views in writing
and orally at a public hearing. The Presiding Officer did not receive
any requests for an oral presentation, so no hearing was held. During
the comment period, which extended from March 5 through May 20, 1993,
the Commission received 34 comments.\12\ These comments were from five
appliance manufacturers, three appliance industry trade associations,
nineteen public utilities, two utilities trade associations, two state
energy offices, one federal agency, one city and one consumer
group.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\The comments are found on the Public Record at the Federal
Trade Commission in Washington, DC under Rulemaking Record Number
R611004 (Appliance Labeling Rule). They are grouped under Category D
(Comprehensive Review--Industry Comments) and Category DD
(Comprehensive Review--Comments from Other Sources). Other material
submitted to the Public Record in this proceeding can be found under
Category A (Public Notices and Petitions) and Category B
(Miscellaneous Staff Materials Assembled Prior to the Initiation of
the Rulemaking Proceeding).
\13\The commenters were: Amana, D-1 and D-2 [references will be
to D-1, which is the later version]; Whirlpool Corporation
(``Whirlpool''), D-3; Maytag, D-4; The Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (``AHAM''), D-5; The Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (``ARI''), D-6; New Harmony Systems
Corporation (``New Harmony''), D-7; Speed Queen, D-8; The Gas
Appliance Manufacturers Association (``GAMA''), D-9; Public Service
Company of North Carolina, Inc. (``PSCNC''), DD-1; Brooklyn Union
Gas (``Brooklyn Gas''), DD-2; The Peoples Gas Light and Coke Company
(``Peoples Gas''), DD-3; Mississippi Valley Gas Company
(``Mississippi Gas''), DD-4; Pennsylvania Gas and Water Company
(``PG&W''), DD-5; Atlanta Gas Light Company (``Atlanta Gas''), DD-6;
Piedmont Natural Gas Company (``Piedmont Gas''), DD-7; The American
Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (``ACEEE''), DD-8; The
Washington State Energy Office (``WSEO''), DD-9; Elizabethtown Gas
Company (``Elizabethtown Gas''), DD-10; Covington Gas Company
(``Covington Gas''), DD-11; The U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (``USEPA''), DD-12; Gibson County Utility District (``Gibson
County Utility''), DD-13; Mountain Fuel Supply Company (``Mountain
Fuel''), DD-14; Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (``Texas Gas''),
DD-15; City of Palmdale (``Palmdale''), DD-16; Oklahoma Natural Gas
Company (``Oklahoma Gas''), DD-17; Memphis Light, Gas and Water
Division (``Memphis Electric and Gas''), DD-18; Louisville Gas and
Electric Company (``LG&E''), DD-19; Laclede Gas Company (``Laclede
Gas''), DD-20; The Electric & Gas Industries Association (``EGIA''),
DD-21; The American Gas Association (``AGA''), DD-22; The California
Energy Commission (``CEC''), DD-23; ENTEX, a Division of ARKLA, Inc.
(``ENTEX''), DD-24; Consolidated Natural Gas Company (``CNG''), DD-
25; UGI Utilities, Inc. (``UGI'') DD-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Discussion of Comments and Disposition of Issues
A. 1988 NPR Issues on Which Limited Comment Was Solicited
1. The Effect of the Implementation of NAECA 87 on the Rule
NAECA 87 established minimum efficiency standards for many
appliances covered by the Rule, which became effective at staggered
intervals between January 1, 1988, and January 1, 1993.\14\ DOE has
adopted rules implementing the standards requirements (hereinafter
``DOE's Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule'').\15\ The 1988 NPR asked
whether these standards would narrow the energy usage ranges of
comparable products to the point that labeling would no longer be
useful and whether, for this reason, the Rule should be modified.\16\
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission tentatively concluded that the 1988 NPR
record did not support eliminating any product categories because of
the new NAECA 87 product standards.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See 42 U.S.C. 6295. After the effective date of a standard,
the manufacture of non-complying products is prohibited. See 42
U.S.C. 6302(a)(5).
\15\10 CFR Part 430, Subpart C.
\16\Manufacturers annually submit to the Commission energy usage
data for their various appliance models. The Commission analyzes
these data and publishes ``ranges'' consisting of the highest and
lowest energy use figures for certain appliance categories. The
manufacturers disclose the industry-wide ranges on their EnergyGuide
labels by means of a bar scale, with a mark indicating where their
appliances fall on the bar. For example, the 1992 range for standard
size dishwashers was from $46.00 to $82.00 (when using electrically
heated water) and from $25.00 to $46.00 (when heating water with
gas). Some manufacturers suggested that, once efficiency standards
are implemented, the range for a given product could be so limited
(for example, from $39 to $41) that providing range information
would not be useful.
\17\See 58 FR 12819-20 (March 5, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments addressed the Commission's tentative 1993 NPR
conclusion. CEC agreed with the Commission that the record does not
support eliminating any product categories.\18\ AHAM recommended that
the Commission continue the Rule, but monitor the effect of the new
energy standards on the products being offered for sale.\19\
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the current comments do not
support any modification of its earlier tentative decision not to
eliminate any specific product category from coverage because of the
NAECA 87 minimum efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\CEC, DD-23, 3.
\19\AHAM, D-5, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Furnace Labeling Requirements
a. Current furnace labeling requirements. Currently, furnaces
(which are defined to include boilers) must bear a label containing
only general energy-saving tips and referring the consumer to a fact
sheet that retailers must make available to consumers. 305.3(g);
305.11(a)(5)(ii) and Figure 3; 305.11(b)(1)(ii).\20\ The fact sheets
show the combinations of components available and the overall
efficiency of any set of component combinations.\21\ In addition, the
fact sheets provide costs grids for estimating what the ``system''
would cost the consumer to operate, depending on geographic location
and utility rate structures. 305.11(b)(3)(viii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\The Commission's reasons for the current label and fact
sheet disclosure requirements for furnaces are discussed in the SBP
at 44 FR 66470-71.
\21\For example, whether the furnace would be available with a
vent damper, standby pilot, automatic ignition, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The Directory option and product-specific label amendments. The
1988 NPR proposed to require that the furnace labels disclose (a) the
specific product's energy factor, identified as the EER, (b) a
``generic'' range of EER's for all furnaces that use the same fuel as
the labeled unit, and, (c) stronger language directing consumers to
either fact sheets or a directory for detailed cost information.
The 1993 NPR analyzed the comments and proposed amending the Rule
to require each furnace to bear a label that discloses product-specific
information showing the unit's annual fuel utilization efficiency
(``AFUE'') and a generic range based on the sub-categories in DOE's
Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule. The Commission also proposed
permitting manufacturers that are members of an industry trade
association with a certification program and a directory to make the
required efficiency and cost disclosures through the directory instead
of preparing fact sheets, provided that the directory met the Rule's
criteria.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See the discussion in the 1993 NPR at 58 FR 12820-23. In
addition to these product-specific label and directory option
modifications to the Rule, the Commission proposed the following
specific requirements to accommodate several potential difficulties
with product-specific labels that some comments raised (see the
discussion at 58 FR 12822-23):
(1) When the working units of boilers (or furnaces) are shipped
separately from the outer jackets, the units would have to be
labeled with hang-tag labels that also have adhesive backing, so the
installer could affix the label to the outside of the jacket after
the unit is installed;
(2) When boilers are shipped with more than one input nozzle,
they would have to be labeled to show the AFUE of the unit when it
is set up with the highest firing rate; and,
(3) Boilers that may be set up as either steam or hot water
units would have to be labeled with the hot water AFUE.
The Commission did not receive comment on these 1993 NPR
proposals, and has incorporated them into the Rule. See section
305.11(a)(5)(ii)(J)-(L) of the amended Rule in ``Text of
Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five comments responded to the 1993 NPR's request for comments on
the above proposals. Amana stated that most central furnace dealers
also sell central air conditioning products, so allowing furnace
manufacturers the option of being listed in an industry directory in
lieu of providing facts sheets would standardize the labeling protocol
for these very similar product classes.\23\ Amana stated, however, that
product-specific furnace labels are of minimal value to consumers for
the reasons previously given by GAMA.\24\ GAMA again opposed a product-
specific furnace label requirement, but supported the directory option.
It noted that the proposed distribution requirements for directories
are reasonable.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Amana, D-1, 1.
\24\Amana, D-1, 2. GAMA's reasons for opposing product-specific
furnace labels are detailed in the 1993 NPR at 58 FR 12821. See also
GAMA's comment (D-9) at page 1.
\25\GAMA, D-9, 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC stated that product-specific information on individual products
is helpful both to CEC's own standards program and the State's utility
incentive programs.\26\ A building code inspector also commented that
his job is made easier and quicker when there are product-specific
labels on appliances. Otherwise, it is time-consuming for inspectors to
track down the information needed to approve a new or replacement
installation of equipment.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\CEC, DD-23, 4. CEC stated that it is often difficult to
identify the precise model from the model numbers contained in
reported information alone, and that it is very useful to have the
energy usage on the label attached to the model itself.
\27\City of Palmdale, DD-16, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laclede Gas suggested that if product-specific labels are required,
they should show detailed cost information as well as the AFUE.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Laclede Gas, DD-20, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these comments, the Commission has determined to adopt its
proposed amendments. GAMA's reasons for opposing furnace labeling
continue to be unpersuasive to the Commission.\29\ Similarly, the
Commission continues to believe that requiring cost information on
furnace labels (as suggested by Laclede Gas) is not advisable, for the
reasons discussed in the Rule's Statement of Basis and Purpose.\30\
Therefore, the Commission is amending the requirements for furnaces as
proposed in the 1993 NPR. See sections 305.11(a)(5) and .11(c) of the
amended Rule in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\See the discussion at 58 FR 12821-22.
\30\See 44 FR 66466 at 66470-71. The differences in regional
climate and consumer use patterns make it impractical to disclose
estimated annual operating cost as the primary energy usage
disclosure for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. New sub-categories for furnaces.
The 1988 NPR proposed that the ranges of comparability for furnaces
be reduced from the 70 currently required ranges to a single
``generic'' range for each fuel type (gas, oil, and electric).\31\ The
1993 NPR proposed instead to adopt as the Rule's ranges of
comparability for furnaces the nine sub-categories for furnaces listed
in NAECA 87 and used in DOE's Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule, which
include a sub-category for both forced-air furnaces and boilers of each
fuel type and separate sub-categories for small gas furnaces, mobile
home furnaces, and gas steam boilers.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\The 70 currently required ranges consist of fourteen ranges,
according to capacity rating (in Btu's of input per hour), for each
of the three fuel types, with furnaces and boilers fueled by natural
gas and oil broken out separately. A ``generic range'' would
encompass all sizes within a fuel type (i.e., one range, rather than
fourteen ranges based on capacity groupings, for electric furnaces).
See 53 FR 22109.
\32\58 FR 12823; 12839-46 (Proposed Appendices G1-G9 to the
Rule). The Commission's reasons for proposing the NAECA 87 sub-
categories for furnaces were as follows:
Using the DOE sub-categories would result in consistency between
the ranges required by the Rule and DOE's minimum efficiency
standards for these sub-categories and thus help manufacturers.
These sub-categories also would help consumers in their shopping
efforts. For example, for non-gas-steam boilers, the lowest
efficiency permitted by the standards is 80% (75% for gas-steam
boilers). The low end of a single range for all gas-fueled boilers
(as proposed in the [1988] NPR) would be 75%. Using that figure as
an end point on the range would inaccurately suggest to a shopper
looking for a gas/hot water boiler that a model with an efficiency
of 75% would be available, when the least efficient model of that
sub-category permitted by the standards would be 80% efficient.
Under the system proposed today, with separate ranges for each sub-
category, the ranges for boilers (except gas-steam) would show the
bottom end of the efficiency range to be at the pertinent minimum
efficiency standard of 80%.
Id. at 12823.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three comments addressed this issue. Amana commented that the NAECA
87 categories would improve consumers' ability to compare products.\33\
GAMA and CEC also supported the proposal, but recommended against
establishing a separate category for ``Small Furnaces.''\34\ GAMA
stated that all warm-air furnaces (other than mobile home furnaces)
have to meet the same standard and that the NAECA standards, as GAMA
believes they will be amended, will not make a distinction between
``furnaces'' and ``small furnaces.''\35\ CEC showed, on the basis of
energy usage figures relating to furnaces marketed in California and
received by CEC in connection with its own minimum efficiency standards
program, that the ranges of comparability of Gas Furnaces and Small Gas
Furnaces are identical at the low end (the minimum efficiency standard)
and virtually the same at the high end. CEC also suggested minor
nomenclature revisions for purposes of clarification.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\Amana, D-1, 1.
\34\GAMA, D-9, 2; CEC, DD-23, 4-5.
\35\GAMA, D-9, 2. The DOE minimum efficiency standards for both
of these sub-categories are the same (78% AFUE). See 10 CFR
430.32(e) (1992).
\36\For example, renaming the categories other than ``Mobile
Home Furnaces'' to indicate that they do not include mobile home
furnaces, and changing ``Boilers-Gas (except gas/steam)'' to
``Boilers-Gas (except steam)'' for consistency. CEC, DD-23, 5. The
Commission believes that following this suggestion could result in
confusion because of the resultant difference in nomenclature
between DOE's furnace sub-categories and the Commission's.
Therefore, the Commission is not adopting CEC's suggestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these comments, the Commission is amending Appendix G to
the Rule (pertaining to furnaces) in general accordance with the 1993
NPR proposal. The Commission is persuaded by the GAMA and CEC comments,
however, that adoption of the proposed sub-category ``Appendix G2 to
Part 305--Small Furnaces--Gas (Under 45,000 Btu's/hr. Input)'' would
not provide consumers with significantly different efficiency
information from what the Furnaces--Gas sub-category (Appendix G1) will
provide. See the amendments to Appendix G in ``Text of Amendments,''
below.
3. Central Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Amendments to Require Range
Information on Fact Sheets or in Directories (as Well as on Labels)
Currently, for central air conditioners and heat pumps, the Rule
requires that range information appear only on the label.37 In the
1988 NPR, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to amend the Rule
to require that the EER and range information appear in fact sheets or
directories as well as on the labels. This proposal was expected to
assist consumers who might not see the labeled units because they are
shopping for these products through directories or fact sheets.38
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\7305.11(a)(5)(iii)(D) and (E).
\3\853 FR 22109, note 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, noting that no comment was received on this issue
in response to the 1988 NPR, the Commission tentatively concluded that
adoption of this requirement would be in the public interest. The
Commission also noted that ARI's current practice was (as it still is)
to include the ranges in its Directory.39 Amana supported this
proposal without giving any specific reasons.40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\9See 58 FR 12823-24.
\4\0Amana, D-1, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to amend the Rule as proposed to
require that the EER and range information appear on fact sheets or in
directories as well as on labels, for the reasons expressed in the 1988
NPR. This amendment parallels the requirements being announced today
for furnaces. See sections 305.11(b)(3)(vi) and .11(c)(3)(vi) of the
amended Rule in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
4. Proposed Amendments to Modify Room Air Conditioner Range Sub-
categories
Currently, Appendix E to the Rule contains 37 ranges for room air
conditioners. The energy efficiency range information the Commission
published prior to 1988 indicated that the range of efficiencies of
room air conditioners was virtually the same for each of the capacity
groupings. Accordingly, reducing the number of ranges from 37 to one
was expected to decrease the industry's labeling burden without
affecting the information provided to consumers, and the 1988 NPR
proposed amending this provision to establish a single generic
range.41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\1See 53 FR 22109.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments in response to the 1988 NPR on this proposal, however,
persuaded the Commission that, because products in the different sub-
categories have different features and applications and were required
to meet (as of January 1, 1990) different minimum efficiency standards,
consumer confusion could result if there were only a single product
category range. Further, because NAECA 87 and the DOE's Minimum
Efficiency Standards Rule set five different minimum EER's among the
ten different capacity groupings, different capacity grouping also
seemed justified.42 Therefore, the 1993 NPR proposed amending the
Rule to include the sub-categories and capacity groupings for room air
conditioners appearing in DOE's Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule
(which were derived from NAECA 87).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\2See 42 U.S.C. 6295(c) and 54 FR 6062, at 6077 (Feb. 7,
1989).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments addressed this issue. Whirlpool unequivocally
supported adoption of the proposed NAECA 87/DOE sub-categories.43
AHAM stated that, although there was no consensus among its membership
as to how to group the products, all agree the existing 37 sub-
categories are too many.44 Amana agreed with reducing and
reorganizing the subcategories, but suggested its own groupings, which
are somewhat more detailed than those proposed in the 1993 NPR.45
CEC stated that it is not necessary for the Commission to use divisions
for ranges of comparability that DOE uses for setting standards.46
CEC, therefore, suggested instead two sub-categories: ``Non-heat-
pumps'' (broken down into three capacity groupings) and ``Heat Pumps''
(in one all-inclusive capacity grouping.)47
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\3Whirlpool, D-3, 4.
\4\4AHAM, D-5, 3-4.
\4\5Amana, D-1, 2, Attachment. Beyond stating that the proposal
does not ``accurately group similar products,'' however, Amana did
not explain why its suggested groupings would be preferable to those
proposed in the NPR.
\4\6CEC, DD-23, 6.
\4\7Id. at 8. The comment contained sample ranges of
comparability charts based on CEC's recommended sub-categories. CEC
derived the sample range charts using energy usage data on room air
conditioners sold in California that had been submitted to CEC in
connection with CEC's minimum efficiency standards program. CEC also
provided figures showing the number of each model type in each
grouping that was marketed in the State of California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC's more inclusive sub-categories may frustrate consumers looking
for the most efficient product with particular features because they
group together room air conditioners with many different
features,48 On the other hand, Amana did not explain sufficiently
why its numerous sub-categories are preferable. The Commission finds
that the sub-categories proposed in the 1993 NPR are sufficiently
detailed to help consumers select the most efficient product with the
features they want. Accordingly, Appendix E of the amended Rule in
``Text of Amendments,'' below, reflects the groupings proposed in the
1993 NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\8For example, louvered room air conditioners cannot be used
for through-the-wall installation, so consumers looking for a built-
in product would find efficiency information for the louvered
products superfluous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Other Products--Proposals to Change Sub-categories
a. Refrigerators, Refrigerator-freezers and Freezers. Under the
current Rule, there is one range category for refrigerators, one for
refrigerator-freezers, and one for freezers.49 In response to the
1988 NPR, four comments recommended that the Commission adopt new range
categories that parallel the sub-categories established by NAECA 87 and
prescribed in DOE's Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule.50
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\9See Appendices A-1, A-2 and B.
\5\0See the discussion in the 1993 NPR at 58 FR 12824-25. NAECA
87 divides refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers into seven sub-
categories, based on the configuration of the doors to the two
compartments and whether the defrost systems are manual or
automatic. It divides freezers into three sub-categories: two for
upright (depending on type of defrost system) and one for chest and
all other types of freezers. DOE has adopted these sub-categories in
its Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule. See 10 CFR 430.32(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed adopting the NAECA 87
refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer and freezer sub-categories. The
Commission stated that the NAECA 87 sub-categories would enable a
consumer who has decided on a product with certain features and a
specific door configuration to see a cost range on the label that
includes only models with the same features as the labeled unit. The
1993 NPR also proposed adding a sub-category for ``All-Refrigerators
with Automatic Defrost'' (meaning a single-door refrigerator, with
automatic defrost, that has a small compartment for ice trays but no
compartment for frozen food storage), noting that a separate range
would be useful to those consumers who are looking only for such a
product.51 In addition, the Commission proposed changing the span
of the capacity groupings within the sub-categories from two cubic feet
to four cubic feet.52 This would result in fewer (and larger)
groupings within each of the 11 sub-categories, with more models within
each group for consumers to compare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\1The DOE test procedure for refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers defines ``all-refrigerator'' as ``an electric refrigerator
which does not include a compartment for the freezing and long time
storage of food at temperatures below 32 degrees F (0.0 degrees C).
It may include a compartment of 0.50 cubic capacity (14.2 liters) or
less for the freezing and storage of ice.'' 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart
B, Appendix A-1, 1.4 (1992).
\5\2For example, instead of grouping products in increments of
two cubic feet, such as: 5.5 to 7.4, 7.5 to 9.4, etc., the amended
appendices would group them in four-cubic-foot increments, such as:
5.5 to 9.4, 9.5 to 13.4, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments addressed these proposals. Amana, Whirlpool and AHAM
supported adoption of the NAECA 87 sub-categories.53 Amana also
supported changing from two- to four-cubic-foot increments,54 but
Whirlpool and AHAM opposed this change. Whirlpool contended that such
increments would depict larger units in a given category as being less
efficient, which would be inaccurate, since ``a higher kWh/year does
not mean the unit is less efficient.''55 AHAM said four-cubic-foot
increments would make it harder for consumers to compare the energy
efficiency of similarly sized products.56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\3Amana, D-1, 1; Whirlpool, D-3, 4; AHAM, D-5, 4-5.
\5\4Amana, D-1, 1.
\5\5Whirlpool, D-3, 4.
\5\6AHAM, D-5, 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC disagreed with the 1993 NPR's proposed sub-categories,
critiquing some assumptions and definitions upon which they were
based.57 In addition, CEC opposed the Commission's proposal to
adopt a sub-category for ``All-refrigerators with Automatic Defrost,''
noting that the term ``All-refrigerator'' is not used in DOE's Minimum
Efficiency Standards Rule, and is defined only in the DOE test
procedure for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers.58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\7CEC, DD-23, 9-19.
\5\8Id. at 11. A footnote in the table setting out the minimum
efficiency standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and
freezers in DOE's Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule refers to ``all
refrigerators with automatic defrost,'' without a hyphen between
``all'' and ``refrigerators.'' CEC contends that this simply means
``all refrigerators,'' which could just as easily be written
``refrigerators.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC proposed sub-categories very similar to those currently
provided in the Rule. The CEC proposal is based on an analysis of
different possible sub-category combinations using the actual number of
these products in the State of California.59 The recommended sub-
categories were: Refrigerators; Refrigerator-freezers; and Freezers
(with a further breakout into Upright and Chest). Capacity groupings
were in four-cubic-foot increments, as proposed in the 1993 NPR.
However, CEC's proposal still differs from the current requirements in
its breakout of Freezers into Upright and Chest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\9Id. at 12-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is not persuaded by CEC's comments that the NAECA 87
sub-categories are inappropriate. The NAECA 87 sub-categories are based
on features and door configurations; they will benefit consumers
because these features are of major significance to them when
shopping.60 Therefore, the amended Rule adopts the NAECA 87 sub-
categories for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers. See
Appendices A1-A8 and B1-B3 in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\0See the discussion in the NPR at 58 FR 12825.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After analyzing the distribution of models among the capacity
groupings, however, the Commission has determined to retain the two-
cubic foot increments currently required in the ranges of comparability
for these products. There are enough models available in the more
popular size groupings so that two-cubic-foot increments will provide
consumers with meaningful selections among these products within the
new sub-categories. Moreover, the Commission agrees with AHAM that
consumers could find it more difficult to use the ranges of
comparability to compare similar models if the capacity groupings were
broken into four-cubic-foot increments. The number of different models
in some of the four-foot groupings would be so large as to inhibit the
consumer selection process. For example, consider a consumer looking
for a 19-cubic-foot refrigerator-freezer with automatic defrost and
top-mounted freezer and without through-the-door ice service. If the
appropriate subcategory were divided into two-cubic-foot increments
(18.5 cu. ft. to 20.4 cu. ft.), the consumer would be comparing the
labeled model with 180 other models. The use of four-cubic-foot
increments would result in the addition of another 215 models, most of
which would be sufficiently larger than the desired 19-cubic-foot model
(they would be from 20.5 to 22.4 cu. ft.) that the information would be
superfluous and likely confusing. Accordingly, the Commission finds
that two-cubic-foot increments would be more likely to assist consumer
selection efforts than four-cubic-foot increments.
In response to CEC's comments on the proposed ``All-Refrigerator
with Automatic Defrost'' sub-category, the Commission has changed the
designation of Appendix A1 from the previously proposed ``All-
Refrigerators with Automatic Defrost'' to ``Refrigerators with
Automatic Defrost,'' and is including a definition of ``all-
refrigerator'' within the definition of ``electric
refrigerator.''61 See Appendix A1 and section 305.3(a)(1) of the
amended Rule in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\1CEC also stated that refrigerator-freezers with internal
freezers are not mentioned in DOE's or the Commission's regulations
but should be covered by the Rule. DD-24 at 12. In fact, these
products are already covered by the definition of refrigerator-
freezer in section 305.3(a)(2) of the Rule. Finally, CEC expressed
dissatisfaction with the fact that refrigerators combined with other
appliances (usually stoves) are not covered by the Rule. Such
coverage is not possible, however, because there is at this time no
DOE test to measure their energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clothes washers and dishwashers. The 1988 NPR solicited comment
on whether the Commission should adopt different sub-categories for
other products. The current Rule prescribes for dishwashers and clothes
washers two sub-categories each (``Standard'' and ``Compact'').62
In response to the 1988 NPR, one comment suggested revising the current
two sub-categories for dishwashers based on the internal water-heating
feature for some dishwashers and the two sub-categories for clothes
washers based on tub capacity, door configuration, and other
features.63 In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed to retain the
existing sub-categories for dishwashers and clothes washers, noting
that NAECA 87 did not create new sub-categories for these two
products.64 At that time, the standards for the products in DOE's
Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule involved only the mandatory inclusion
of an energy-saving feature consisting of an option to dry without heat
for dishwashers and an unheated wash option for clothes washers.65
The Commission noted, however, that if future revisions to the DOE
standards appeared to warrant a change in the categories for these
products, the Commission would consider the issue at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\2See Appendix C (Dishwashers) and Appendix F (Clothes
washers).
\6\3See 58 FR 12825 (March 5, 1993).
\6\4Id.
\6\5See 54 FR 6062, 6077 (Feb. 7, 1989). Both standards were
prescribed earlier in NAECA 87, however, and became effective on
January 1, 1988.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five comments addressed this issue. All five supported retaining
the current sub-categories for dishwashers.66 Four comments,
however, suggested changing the sub-categories for clothes washers by
adding two further subdivisions--horizontal axis and vertical
axis.67 In support, AHAM stated that the technologies of the two
proposed subdivisions are different and that consumers interested in
the horizontal axis market niche should be able to compare products
within that subdivision.68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\6Whirlpool, D-3, 4; AHAM, D-5, 5; New Harmony, D-D-7, 1-3 and
Attachment; Speed Queen, D-8, 2; CEC, DD-23, 20 (CEC also supported
the proposal not to change the sub-categories for clothes washers).
\6\7Whirlpool, D-3, 4; AHAM, D-5, 5; New Harmony, D-D-7, 1-3 and
Attachment; Speed Queen, D-8, 2. New Harmony suggested modifying the
definition for ``energy factor'' to include the subdivisions, and
Speed Queen suggested that front loaders (usually horizontal axis)
should not be included in the same sub-categories with top loaders
(usually vertical axis.)
\6\8AHAM, D-5, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal axis clothes washers (which are generally front-loading)
are significantly more energy-efficient than vertical axis washers
(generally top-loading). Because the typical door configurations for
these products are different, consumers may shop for only one
configuration, and information respecting the energy usage of products
having the other configuration may not be useful. For example,
consumers wanting to stack a clothes dryer on top of their washer to
conserve space would only be interested in a front loading washer.
The Commission finds, therefore, that separate ranges of
comparability for these products would benefit consumers. Accordingly,
the Commission is retaining the current sub-categories for dishwashers
but amending the sub-categories for clothes washers to reflect a
further subdivision into top-loading and front-loading models. See
Appendix F--Clothes Washers, in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
6. Energy Cost Descriptor--Proposals to Change From Estimated Annual
Operating Cost to an Alternative Descriptor for Some Products
For five appliance categories (refrigerators and refrigerator-
freezers, freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers and water heaters),
the Rule requires that labels reflect the estimated annual dollar cost
of operation for the product and the applicable range of comparable
products. This cost information is calculated by using the National
Average Representative Unit Costs (``NARUCs'') for energy that DOE
develops and publishes annually in the Federal Register.\69\ The
Commission publishes revised ranges of comparability annually in the
Federal Register if the upper or lower limits change by 15% or more
from the previously published ranges. If the ranges do not change, the
Commission publishes a notice that the prior range is still applicable
for the next year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\See 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4). These energy cost figures are
incorporated into Sec. 305.9 of the Commission's Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1988 NPR solicited comment on using alternate energy
descriptors that would remain constant, rather than dollar descriptors.
It proposed that the labels disclose energy usage in kilowatt-hours for
electrically fueled products, therms for natural gas products, and
gallons for oil-fueled water heaters. In the alternative, the 1988 NPR
proposed using an energy factor similar to the EER for furnaces, room
air conditioners, and central air conditioners.\70\ The comments
submitted in response to the 1988 proposal generally favored the
elimination of dollar energy usage descriptors in favor of an energy
consumption descriptor on labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers and freezers, clothes washers, and dishwashers. In contrast,
the comments generally favored either retention of dollar cost or use
of an energy factor on labels for water heaters.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\See 53 FR 22109-10.
\71\See 58 FR 12826-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission noted that most appliance models
change about every three years, whereas the DOE energy costs change
annually because of fuel cost changes. If energy cost changes affect
the upper or lower limits of the ranges of comparability by 15% or
more, new labels are required. As a result, a floor model on display
for a lengthy time may show an operating cost that is different from
the cost shown on an identical, newer unit delivered to a consumer's
home because the Commission has required new labels, not because of any
change in the product's efficiency. For the same reason, two identical
floor models, manufactured in different years, may display different
operating costs. Also, models with different features can have labels
based on different DOE cost figures, making it unlikely that average
consumers can accurately compare their energy usage. As a result, many
consumers who are familiar with energy cost information may question
the accuracy of cost information on labels.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\See 58 FR 12827 at note 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to EPCA, labels may disclose an alternate energy use
figure, determined in accordance with DOE tests, if the Commission
determines that estimated annual operating cost is not likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically
feasible.\73\ For the reasons set forth in the 1993 NPR, the Commission
concludes that use of a dollar figure as the primary descriptor of
energy usage is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions regarding refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers,
clothes washers, dishwashers, and water heaters. Providing such label
information may adversely affect the value of the labeling program.\74\
Below, the Commission discusses the specific alternative disclosures to
be made for each product category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)(A)(ii).
\74\See 58 FR 12827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers. In the 1993
NPR, the Commission proposed using kilowatt-hours per year (``kWh/
year'') as the primary energy usage descriptor instead of a dollar cost
on labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers.\75\
The Commission stated that, although a kWh/year energy usage descriptor
is more technical, its use would minimize label changes. The Commission
said that those consumers who want to use a dollar cost figure can use
the cost grid on the label that was proposed to supplement the kWh/year
energy usage descriptor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The eight comments that addressed the proposal strongly supported
it.\76\ Several noted that this type of disclosure is advantageous
because it is the same disclosure that Canada requires on its EnerGuide
labels for appliances.\77\ Two suggested that labels include
definitions of kWh/year.\78\ Therefore, the Commission has determined
to require the disclosure of kWh/year as the energy usage descriptor
for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers. The Commission
also is requiring that a definition for kWh/year be used on the labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\Amana, D-1, 2-3; Whirlpool, D-3, 2; Maytag, D-4, 1-2; AHAM,
D-5, 6-10; ACEEE, DD-8, 1; WSEO, DD-9, 2; EGIA, DD-21, 1-2; CEC, DD-
23, 20.
\77\Amana, D-1, 3; Maytag, D-4, 3-4; AHAM, D-5, 8-9.
\78\ACEEE, DD-8, 1: ``A kilowatt-hour is a measure of
electricity use;'' ACEEE also suggested making clear that the lower
the kWh/year, the better the efficiency of the product; WSEO, DD-9,
2: ``Energy efficient freezers use fewer Kilowatt-hours per year and
cost less to run. A Kilowatt-hour is a measure of electricity.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the kWh/year figures can easily be multiplied by an
appropriate cost per year for electricity to provide an estimated
annual operating cost for the labeled product and the ranges of
comparability, the Commission has determined to no longer require that
the labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers
contain a cost grid. However, the primary kWh/year disclosure will be
supplemented by a single disclosure of estimated annual operating cost
in the form of a statement at the bottom of the label. This statement
will show the operating cost for the labeled product derived using the
DOE annual average cost for electricity. The statement will identify
the specific costs per unit for electricity and the year DOE published
it.\79\ Because the cost figure in the statement will be supplemental
information, rather than the primary basis for product comparisons, the
cost figure only need be revised whenever a general revision of labels
is occasioned by a change of more than 15% in the kWh/year ranges of
comparability.\80\ This approach will enable consumers to compare
generally the energy usage of products expressed as an operating cost.
This figure supplements the main energy usage descriptor by giving
consumers some sense at a glance of how energy usage differences are
translated into dollars and cents. This should be helpful for those
consumers who do not know their local utility rates. See
Sec. 305.11(a)(5)(i)(E) and the Sample Label for refrigerator-freezers
in the Amended Rule in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\See discussion of the operating cost statement in connection
with the elimination of cost grids in Part IV.B.4.b., below.
\80\The operating cost statement will not include a range of
operating costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Clothes washers and dishwashers. The Rule currently requires
labels for clothes washers and dishwashers to contain two energy
descriptors--one to show the cost of operation for each water-heating
method (electricity or gas).\81\ The 1988 NPR proposed replacing the
two dollar operating cost disclosures with disclosures of kWh/year and
therms per year.\82\ Specifically, the Commission proposed that one
disclosure would show kWh per cycle (to run the machine and heat the
water) when an electric water heater is used. The other would show kWh
per cycle (to run the machine) and therms of gas per cycle (to heat the
water) when the product is used with a gas water heater. This approach
would require two sets of ranges, as well--one under each disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\See Sample Labels for clothes washers and dishwashers in
Appendix K of the Rule. Although the motors that power clothes
washers and dishwashers run on electricity, the source of the energy
used to heat the water they use could be either natural gas or
electricity. When these products use water heated with natural gas,
heating the water accounts for fifty percent of the energy consumed
during testing. When they use electrically heated water, eighty
percent of the energy used by the product is consumed in heating the
water.
\82\See 53 FR 22110 at note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission reiterated that use of a dollar
cost disclosure for these products is unlikely to assist consumers in
making purchase decisions, and that simplified labels that used
alternative energy usage descriptors would be better. The Commission
further stated that disclosing the energy used per cycle, as proposed
in the 1988 NPR, would require two disclosures that would clutter the
label and possibly confuse consumers.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\See 58 FR 12827.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission therefore proposed using an energy
factor as the alternative descriptor because it would result in a label
with only one energy usage descriptor and range disclosure, as on
labels for all other products. As discussed in note nine, above, an
energy factor is a numerical measure of the useful output of an
appliance's services divided by the energy input. The DOE test
procedures assume, for purposes of calculating the energy factor, that
the water used by the appliances is electrically heated. Accordingly,
the procedures yield a single energy factor for a dishwasher or clothes
washer disclosure, instead of two. The Commission also proposed
retaining the two cost grids that are on the labels: one showing
various annual costs of operation with electrically heated water
(calculated using various costs for electricity), and one for gas-
heated water (using various costs for gas). The Commission suggested
that this labeling approach would permit easier comparisons among
similar models and that the two cost grids would enable consumers to
calculate annual operating costs and compare models on the basis of how
their water is heated.
Eighteen comments addressed this proposal.\84\ Four supported the
proposal.\85\ ACEEE preferred energy factor to EER,\86\ and WSEO
supported use of an energy factor because ``it is consistent with past
practice, industry terminology and the DOE test procedures.''\87\ CEC
noted that ``there is no easily understood way of describing the
efficiency of a dishwasher, clothes washer, or water heater. Thus, the
best we can hope for is to have an energy factor which the consumer
recognizes as a measure of efficiency and that the consumer recognizes
that a high [energy] factor means high efficiency.''\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\Comments from the appliance industry, the state agencies,
and the consumer group were specifically related either to both
dishwashers and clothes washers, or clothes washers only (New
Harmony, D-7, 1-3, and Speed Queen, D-8, 1). Comments from gas
utilities generally encompassed dishwashers, clothes washers, and
water heaters, with a clear emphasis on water heaters. Some
utilities rejected use of an energy factor without mentioning any
specific product category (see, Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; Mississippi
Gas, DD-4, 1-2, 4; PG&W, DD-5, 1; Memphis Electric and Gas, DD-18,
1-2).
\85\ACEEE, DD-8, 1; WSEO, DD-9, 1-2; CEC, DD-23, 20; New Harmony
did not specifically endorse the use of an energy factor, but did
suggest a specific definition for the term, thus implying acceptance
of it. D-7, 1-3.
\86\ACEEE, DD-8, 1. The comment was in response to a question in
the 1993 NPR (see Question 1. a., at 58 FR 12830).
\87\WSEO, DD-9, 2.
\88\CEC, DD-23, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourteen comments opposed the proposal.\89\ These comments
contended that an energy factor is too complicated and confusing and
will mean nothing to consumers.\90\ Five suggested changing to an
energy consumption disclosure, such as kilowatts per cycle or per
year.\91\ Nine recommended retaining the estimated annual operating
cost.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\Whirlpool, D-3, 2; Maytag, D-4, 1-2; AHAM, D-5, 6-7, 9-10;
Speed Queen, D-8, 1; PSCNC, DD-1, 2; Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; Peoples
Gas, DD-3, 1; Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 1-2, 4; PG&W, DD-5, 1; Memphis
Electric and Gas, DD-18, 1-2; LG&E, DD-19, 3-4; EGIA, DD-21, 2; AGA,
DD-22, 2-4; ENTEX, DD-24, 2-3.
\90\See, for example, Whirlpool, D-3, 3 (energy factors have
meaning to engineers, but not to consumers); Maytag, D-4, 1-2
(energy factors would be very difficult and even overwhelming to
consumers and retail salespeople). Mississippi Gas suggested that
the use of an energy factor could discriminate against minority and
low income households and attached the results of a consumer survey
in support of its contention. DD-4, 1-2.
\91\Whirlpool, D-3, 2; Maytag, D-4, 1-2; AHAM, D-5, 6-7, 9-10;
Speed Queen, D-8, 1; EGIA, DD-21, 2.
\92\PSCNC, DD-1, 2; Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; Peoples Gas, DD-3, 1;
Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 1-2, 4; PG&W, DD-5, 1; Memphis Electric and
Gas, DD-18, 1-2; LG&E, DD-19, 3-4; AGA, DD-22, 2-4; ENTEX, DD-24, 2-
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the comments favoring estimated annual operating cost
included consumer survey results in support of their position. ENTEX
attached consumer survey results indicating that 80% of 200 consumers
surveyed preferred the current label when asked to compare the 1993 NPR
Sample 4 dishwasher label with the current (estimated annual operating
cost) dishwasher label.\93\ Mississippi Gas's results of a similar
consumer survey indicated that 48.5% of 200 mall intercept
consumers\94\ preferred an estimated annual operating cost disclosure,
as did nine out of ten consumers interviewed on videotape.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\DD-24, 4, Attachment, 16.
\94\DD-4, 3, Attachment, 17-18.
\95\DD-4, Attachment, 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the comments supporting a cost disclosure contended that an
energy factor disclosure actually would mislead consumers.\96\ Several
referred to the 1979 Statement of Basis and Purpose, in which the
Commission concluded that, for appliances other than climate control
equipment, any alternative to the estimated annual operating cost
disclosure predicated on the DOE tests (including the most often cited
alternative--the energy factor) would not be likely to assist consumers
in making purchasing decisions.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\This argument pertains only to water heaters, however, as
discussed in Part IV. A. 6. c., below.
\97\The reference is to 44 FR 66478 (Nov. 19, 1979). See
Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; LG&E, DD-19, 2; AGA, DD-22, 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The five comments favoring an energy consumption disclosure
recommended the use of kilowatt-hours--four suggesting kilowatt-hour
use per cycle (kWh/cycle)\98\ and one suggesting kWh/cycle or kilowatt-
hour use per year (kWh/year).\99\ Whirlpool, Maytag, and AHAM commented
that consumers are familiar with kilowatt-hours because they see them
every month on their electric bills.\100\ Whirlpool contended that,
with a disclosure of kWh/cycle, dual disclosures and cost grids would
not be necessary, since consumers would have all they need to make a
comparative purchasing decision. Whirlpool suggested that those few
consumers who would want to know the estimated annual operating cost of
their appliance with a gas water heater could probably obtain the
information from the manufacturer.\101\ AHAM recommended disclosing
kWh/cycle as the main disclosure and disclosing additionally the
percentage reduction in operating cost if a gas water heater is
used.\102\ AHAM and Speed Queen pointed out that a kilowatt-hour
disclosure would be consistent with the requirements of the Canadian
Energuide labels for these products, with Speed Queen specifically
mentioning kWh/year, rather than kWh/cycle.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\Whirlpool, D-3, 2; Maytag, D-4, 1-2; AHAM, D-5, 6-7, 9-10;
EGIA, DD-21, 2.
\99\Speed Queen, D-8, 1.
\100\Whirlpool, D-3, 3; Maytag, D-4, 2; AHAM, 10.
\101\Whirlpool, D-3, 3.
\102\AHAM, D-5, 6-7, 9-10.
\103\AHAM, D-5, 8-9; Speed Queen, D-8, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission explained its reasons for proposing
not to require the disclosure of estimated annual operating cost as the
primary energy usage disclosure on labels. Those reasons are summarized
in Part IV.A.6., immediately above.\104\ The comments favoring the
continued use of estimated annual operating cost on labels for these
products have not provided any new information that would support a
change in the Commission's tentative conclusion about this issue. The
Commission rejects, therefore, the suggestions that operating cost be
retained as the primary descriptor on dishwasher and clothes washer
labels, and reiterates its conclusion that estimated annual operating
cost as the primary energy usage disclosure is not likely to assist
consumers in making purchasing decisions with respect to these
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\See 58 FR 12826-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments supporting the Commission's proposed use of energy
factor did not elaborate on why they believed this descriptor would be
appropriate.105 In contrast, the comments opposing the use of
energy factor were unanimous in the specific criticism that the term
would mean nothing to consumers and would confuse them.106 For
example, Maytag stated that it was difficult to explain energy factor
sufficiently to Maytag employees, even when the person explaining the
term thoroughly understood the concept. Maytag also contended that
consumers seeing energy factors would be confused by the association of
higher numbers with higher efficiency. For operating cost descriptors
for clothes washers and dishwashers, ``smaller is better.''107 The
Commission is therefore persuaded by the comments that the energy
factor proposed in the 1993 NPR is not the most appropriate alternative
to operating cost as an energy usage descriptor for these two product
categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\05ACEEE supported its use without elaboration. ACEEE,DD-8, 1.
WSEO favored energy factor because its use would be consistent with
the DOE test and with ``industry terminology and past practice,''
(presumably a reference to its use in the GAMA Directory for water
heaters, because the current labels for clothes washers and
dishwashers require the disclosure of estimated annual operating
cost, not an energy factor.) WSEO, DD-9, 2. CEC acknowledged that
communication of energy usage for these two product categories is
difficult to accomplish, and that an energy factor is the best one
could hope for. CEC, DD-23, 23.
\1\06See note 89, above.
\1\07Maytag, D-4, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission concludes that an energy consumption descriptor in
terms of kilowatt-hours of electricity consumed per year (kWh/year)
would be the best alternative disclosure of energy usage for clothes
washers and dishwashers. As several comments pointed out, consumers are
familiar with kilowatt-hours from their utility bills, so kilowatt-hour
use will be more familiar than an energy factor.108 The required
disclosure will be in terms of electricity consumed using an electric
water heater alone, without showing energy consumption for use of the
product with both an electric and gas water heater. By comparing the
kWh/year of one product to another, consumers will be able to see how
the products use energy relative to one another.109 This fulfills
the EnergyGuide program's purpose of providing consumers with
comparative energy usage information for making purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\08Whirlpool, D-3, 3; Maytag, D-4, 2; AHAM, 10.
\1\09The range of comparability scale will, as before, provide
information as to how the labeled product compares in energy usage
to all other similarly sized products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees with Whirlpool that use of a kilowatt-hour
usage descriptor eliminates the need for a cost grid because those
consumers who so wish may multiply the kWh figure by a cost per kWh for
electricity and convert the descriptor into a cost-per-year
figure.110 However, as with labels for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers and freezers, water heaters, and room air
conditioners, the primary kWh/year disclosure will be supplemented by
an estimated annual operating cost disclosure in the form of a
statement at the bottom of the label. For clothes washers and
dishwashers, this statement will show two operating costs for the
labeled product--one calculated on the basis of its use with an
electric water heater, and one with a gas water heater--both derived
using the DOE annual average cost for electricity and gas. (As in the
case of the current labels, the cost for operation with an oil-fired
water heater is not included because these products account for less
than one percent of all residential water heater sales.) The statement
will identify the specific costs per unit for the two fuels and the
year DOE published them.111 This supplemental disclosure will
enable consumers to obtain a sense of the magnitude of the monetary
difference in operating costs between different models, without
requiring that they make their own mathematical calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\10Whirlpool, D-3, 3. See the discussion of elimination of
cost grids on all labels in Part IV.B.4.b., below.
\1\11See discussion of the operating cost statement in
connection with the elimination of cost grids in Part IV.B.4.b.,
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is amending the Rule to require a disclosure of kWh/
year on labels for these products, rather than adopting a kWh/cycle
descriptor, as several comments suggested.112 A kWh/year
disclosure, because it provides a larger spread of figures than would a
kWh/cycle, discloses differences in energy usage that will be easier
for consumers to perceive. Obviously, much more electricity is consumed
during a year than during one cycle of operation. Thus, kWh/year will
show larger figures and greater intervals between the figures for
different models and, therefore, will illustrate more clearly the
magnitude of the efficiency difference. Moreover, a kWh/year disclosure
will be consistent with the amended disclosure requirements for the
other non-climate-control products and with the Canadian EnerGuide
program's required disclosures for these two products (as well as the
other products covered by the Canadian program.) Accordingly, the final
amended Rule requires that labels for dishwashers and clothes washers
disclose the products' energy usage in terms of kilowatt-hours used per
year. See section 305.11(a)(5)(i)(E) through (J), Appendices C and F,
and Sample Labels for dishwashers and clothes washers in ``Text of
Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\12See Whirlpool, D-3, 2; Maytag, D-4, 1-2; AHAM, D-5, 6-7, 9-
10; EGIA, DD-21, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Water heaters. As discussed in the 1993 NPR, the comments
responding to the proposal to change from a cost disclosure to energy
factor or kWh, therms (of gas), or gallons (of oil) per year for water
heaters were divided between keeping the estimated annual operating
cost and switching to the energy factor.113 Citing its reasoning
in the 1988 NPR, the Commission tentatively concluded in the 1993 NPR
that, as a primary disclosure of energy cost, a dollar disclosure is
not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.114
Because the energy factor is already in use within the industry and is
easily converted to estimated annual operating cost, the Commission
proposed to require it for water heaters, even though it could make
accurate cross-fuel comparisons difficult.115
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\13See discussion at 58 FR 12827-28.
\1\14See 53 FR 22109-10. See also 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)(A)(ii).
\1\15The Commission noted that consumers who wished to, could
use the cost grids at the bottom of the labels to make cross-fuel
comparisons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 23 comments on this proposal,116 only three favored
replacing estimated annual operating cost with an energy factor for
water heaters.117 ACEEE and WSEO favored the use of energy factor
with little elaboration.118 As with dishwashers and clothes
washers, CEC supported the energy factor as the best way to communicate
the efficiency of water heaters.119 CEC noted that federal
standards and enforcement actions and incentive payments from utilities
are all based on efficiency values, rather than dollar values, which
can cause confusion by changing annually for the same basic
design.120
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\16PSCNC, DD-1, 2; Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; Peoples Gas, DD-3,
1; Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 1-2, 4; PG&W, DD-5, 1; Atlanta Gas, DD-6,
1; Piedmont Gas, DD-7, 1-2; ACEEE, DD-8, 1; WSEO, DD-9, 1-2;
Elizabethtown Gas, DD-10, 1-2; Covington Gas, DD-11, 1; Gibson
County Utility, D-13, 1; Mountain Fuel, DD-14, 1-2; Texas Gas, DD-
15, 3-4; Oklahoma Gas, DD-17, 1-2; Memphis Electric and Gas, DD-18,
1-2; LG&E, DD-19, 3-4; Laclede Gas, DD-20, 1-5; AGA, DD-22, 2-4;
CEC, DD-23, 20, 23; ENTEX, DD-24, 2-3; Consolidated Natural Gas, DD-
25, 1-4; UGI, DD-26, 1-2.
\1\17ACEEE, DD-8, 1, WSEO, DD-9, 1-2, and CEC, DD-23, 20.
\1\18ACEEE, DD-8, 1, WSEO, DD-9, 2.
\1\19CEC, DD-23, 23.
\1\20Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all 20 comments opposing the replacement of estimated annual
operating cost with the energy factor disclosure stated that energy
factors would be much more confusing to consumers, who understand and
are used to dollar cost disclosures. Many argued that an energy factor
disclosure could mislead consumers because the range of energy factors
is from approximately .55 to .65 for gas water heaters and from .86 to
.95 for electric water heaters. They suggested that this could lead
consumers to conclude erroneously that electric water heaters would be
less costly to run.121 Some stated that requiring energy factors
would make it difficult for consumers to compare water heaters using
different fuels.122
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\21See, e.g., Peoples Gas, DD-3, 1; Piedmont Gas, DD-7. 1-2;
Elizabethtown Gas, DD-10, 1-2; Mountain Fuel, DD-14, 1-2; Texas Gas,
DD-15, 3-4; Oklahoma Gas, DD-17, 1-2; LG&E, DD-19, 3-4; Laclede Gas,
DD-20, 1-5; ENTEX, DD-24, 2-3. The current ranges of estimated
annual operating costs for all sizes of water heaters are from $122
to $216 for gas water heaters and from $377 to $464 for electric
water heaters. 56 FR 46534 (Sept. 13, 1991).
\1\22See, e.g., Brooklyn Gas, DD-2, 1; PG&W, DD-5, 1;
Consolidated Gas, DD-25, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several comments also stated that energy factors do not take into
consideration the total system efficiency of the energy source fueling
the water heater.123 The implication is that electricity is
considerably more expensive and energy-intensive to produce than
natural gas. For example, Laclede Gas contended that from extraction to
point of end use, 91% of the energy content of natural gas is delivered
to customers, whereas for electricity, 27% of the energy content is
delivered.124
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\23See, e.g., Peoples Gas, DD-3; Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 4;
Laclede Gas, DD-20, 3.
\1\24Laclede Gas, DD-20, 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight comments contended that consumers are frequently in a
position to judge energy cost before making their selection because
they have increasing opportunities to see water heaters before purchase
in building supply stores, retail outlets and in new homes.125
They concluded that such consumers, therefore, should be provided with
estimated annual operating cost on labels. Several comments quoted with
approval the Commission's conclusion in the 1979 Statement of Basis and
Purpose that any alternative to the estimated annual operating cost
disclosure predicated on the DOE tests (including the most often cited
alternative--the energy factor) would not be likely to assist consumers
in making purchasing decisions.126
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\25Peoples Gas, DD-3, 1; Elizabethtown Gas, DD-10, 1-2;
Covington Gas, DD-11, 1; Gibson County Utility, D-13, 1; Texas Gas,
DD-15, 4; AGA, DD-22, 3; Consolidated Gas, DD-25, 1-2; UGI, DD-26,
2.
\1\26See note 97, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with dishwashers and clothes washers, the Commission explained
in the 1993 NPR why it proposed changing from requiring an estimated
annual operating cost disclosure as the primary energy usage descriptor
on labels for water heaters.127 Those reasons are summarized in
Part IV.A.6., above.128 As with clothes washers and dishwashers,
the comments favoring the continued use of estimated annual operating
cost on labels for water heaters have not provided any new information
that would support a change in the Commission's tentative decision on
this issue. The Commission rejects, therefore, the suggestions that
operating cost be retained as the primary disclosure of energy usage on
water heater labels, and reiterates its conclusion that estimated
annual operating cost as a primary energy usage descriptor is not
likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions with respect
to these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\27See 58 FR 12828.
\1\28See 58 FR 12826-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in the case of clothes washers and dishwashers, the comments
supporting the Commission's proposed use of energy factor for water
heaters did not elaborate on why they believed this descriptor would be
appropriate. ACEEE supported its use without further comment.129
WSEO favored energy factor because its use would be consistent with the
DOE test and with ``industry terminology and past practice,'' which is
presumably a reference to its use in the GAMA Directory for water
heaters.130 CEC acknowledged that communication of energy usage
for water heaters is difficult to accomplish, and that an energy factor
is the best that could be hoped for.131 The Commission is
persuaded by the comments that the energy factor is not the best energy
usage descriptor for water heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\29ACEEE, DD-8, 1.
\1\30WSEO, DD-9, 2.
\1\31CEC, DD-23, 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined to amend the Rule instead to require
that labels for water heaters disclose the products' energy usage in
terms of kilowatt-hours used per year (for electric water heaters),
therms of natural gas used per year (for natural gas-fueled water
heaters), and gallons used per year (for propane-gas-fueled and oil-
fueled water heaters), as proposed in the 1988 NPR.132 As in the
case of dishwashers and clothes washers, this disclosure has the
advantage of obviating the need for cost grids on the labels by
providing consumers with the option of determining cost by multiplying
the labeled value by the appropriate cost per unit of the applicable
fuel, which will also be disclosed (see below). This calculation will
facilitate consumers' ability to make cross-fuel comparisons, if they
wish to do so. Moreover, it provides a disclosure in terms that will be
familiar to consumers because they see kWh, therms or gallons on their
fuel bills. Finally, it maintains consistency among all the labels for
non-climate-control products covered by the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\32See 53 FR 22110, note 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This primary disclosure will be supplemented by an estimated annual
operating cost disclosure in the form of a statement at the bottom of
the label. This statement will show the operating cost for the labeled
product derived using the DOE annual average cost for electricity, gas,
or oil, as appropriate. The statement will identify the specific cost
per unit for the applicable fuel and the year DOE published it.\133\
This statement will provide a basis for making cross-fuel comparisons.
The additional advantages of retaining operating cost as supplemental
information have been discussed in Part IV.A.6.a. and b., above.\134\
See Amended Rule sections 305.11(a)(5)(i)(E) through (J), Appendices D1
through D3, and the Sample Labels for water heaters in ``Text of
Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\See discussion of the operating cost statement in
connection with the elimination of cost grids in Part IV.B.4.b.,
below.
\134\See also the discussion of the elimination of cost grids in
Part IV.B.4.b., below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Proposed Changes In Label Adhesion Strength Requirement
Section 305.11(a)(4)(i) of the Rule specifies the paper stock and
minimum peel adhesion capacity of labels for covered products. In
addition to requiring that adhesive labels be applied ``so they can be
easily removed without use of tools or liquids, other than water,''
this section requires that the label adhesive must have ``a minimum
peel adhesion capacity of 24 ounces per inch width.'' Prior to the 1988
NPR, the Commission received requests to amend this provision to make
the labels easier for consumers to remove. The 1988 NPR sought comment
on whether to lower the minimum peel adhesion capacity and on whether a
performance standard should be adopted instead.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\See 53 FR 22111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission discussed the comments responding
to the 1988 NPR, which favored an amendment that would make it easier
to remove labels. The Commission concluded that the current standard
can result in labels sticking to products with excessive tenacity and
proposed a specific performance standard. To provide the industry with
guidance as to an acceptable minimum adhesion capacity sufficient to
meet the performance standard, the Commission also proposed changing
the minimum peel adhesion capacity in the Rule from 24 to 12 ounces and
changing it from a requirement to a suggestion.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\See 58 FR 12825-26 and 12835 (proposed section
305.11(a)((4)(i)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments addressed this issue. One supported the proposal,
saying that excessive label tenacity has been an annoying problem.\137\
Three others supported the proposal, but emphasized that the Rule
should not require any specific adhesion capacity.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\Amana, D-1, 2.
\138\Whirlpool, D-3, 5; AHAM, D-5, 6; ARI, D-6, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission concludes that the record supports revising the Rule
to state a performance standard for label adhesion capacity without
requiring any specific adhesion capacity number. The Rule will state,
for guidance only, an adhesion capacity number (12 ounces) that the
Commission deems adequate to comply with the performance standard. See
section 305.11(a)(4)(i) of the Amended Rule in ``Text of Amendments,''
below.
8. Suggestion To Label Only Display Models In Retail Outlets
The 1988 NPR also requested comment on a manufacturer's suggestion
that the Rule permit manufacturers to label only display models in
retail outlets to reduce labeling cost while still providing
information to the public. Because the Commission interprets EPCA as
requiring a label on all models of covered products,\139\ the 1988 NPR
sought comment on whether the Commission should submit a special report
to Congress recommending a change in EPCA to allow the Commission to
amend the Rule in this regard.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\Section 324(c)(1) (42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1)) states that ``* *
* a rule prescribed under this section shall require that each
covered product in the type or class of covered products to which
the rule applies bear a label which discloses * * *.'' (emphasis
added).
\140\This procedure is permitted under Section 6(f) of the FTC
Act (15 U.S.C. 46(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The six comments responding to the discussion of this issue in the
1988 NPR opposed the proposal to label only display models. In the 1993
NPR, therefore, the Commission stated that it intended to take no
action on it.\141\ The one comment on the proposal to label only
display models supported the Commission's 1993 NPR tentative decision
to take no action on the proposal.\142\ The Commission, therefore, will
not submit a special report to Congress recommending such a change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\See 58 FR 12826.
\142\CEC, DD-23, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Directory Option for Water Heaters
The 1988 NPR solicited comment on a proposal from GAMA to repeal
the current product-specific labeling requirements for water heaters
and, instead, to allow manufacturers to provide required energy usage
information in an industry directory and to label their products with
labels that provide no energy usage information or limited information.
Of the six comments addressing this proposal, only one favored it and
the Commission decided to leave the current water heater labeling
requirements unchanged. The Commission noted that GAMA's Directory can
be a useful voluntary supplement to the labels for those consumers and
industry members who choose to use it.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\See 58 FR 12826.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments addressed this issue.\144\ No new evidence or
arguments were raised. GAMA reiterated its previous position that
furnaces and water heaters typically are purchased from contractor-
installers and are not seen on display by consumers before their
purchase and installation and, therefore, should not be subject to
mandatory labeling requirements.\145\ Atlanta Gas supported, without
specific reasons, the Commission's position to continue requiring
product-specific labels for water heaters instead of requiring only
that they be listed in a directory.\146\ A comment from a building code
inspector stated that labels on products reduce building code
inspection delays and make inspections easier.\147\ CEC reported that
the major manufacturers use so many manufacturers' names, trade names,
and model numbers that it is often very difficult to determine with any
degree of certainty what data in a directory, either GAMA's or CEC's,
pertain to any specific unit.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\GAMA, D-9, 1; Atlanta Gas, DD-6, 2; Palmdale, DD-16, 1;
CEC, DD-23, 20.
\145\GAMA, D-9, 1.
\146\Atlanta Gas, DD-6, 2.
\147\Palmdale, DD-16, 1.
\148\CEC, DD-23, 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eight other comments bear on this issue; all of these were received
from members of the natural gas industry who opposed requiring energy
factors on labels for water heaters, clothes washers, and dishwashers.
They commented that appliances, including water heaters, increasingly
are on display in stores, building supply outlets, and new homes. They
concluded that consumers can therefore make purchasing decisions that
consider the information on labels attached to the products.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\Peoples Gas, DD-3, 1; Elizabethtown Gas, DD-10, 1-2;
Covington Gas, DD-11, 1; Gibson County Utility, D-13, 1; Texas Gas,
DD-15, 4; AGA, DD-22, 3; Consolidated Gas, DD-25, 1-2: ``Market
trends suggest that labels do indeed assist a large number of
consumers in purchases of appliances such as water heaters. The fact
that most water heaters are purchased either as emergency
replacement of leaking water heaters or in connection with the
purchase of a new home does not necessarily lead one to conclude
that consumers do not take the time to look at the labels on
appliances that they are planning to purchase. In the case of new
homes, it is similarly difficult to conclude that the consumer/
homebuyer never actually takes the time to at least casually inspect
the water heater and thus see the water heater label.''; UGI, DD-26,
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission is retaining the product-specific
labeling requirements for water heaters.
10. Proposal to Label Certain Unvented Heaters
The Commission in 1979 exempted electric unvented heaters, or
``space heaters,'' from the Rule.\150\ In 1984, DOE published a final
test procedure for ``unvented heaters'' that use natural gas, propane
and kerosene.\151\ Consequently, in the 1988 NPR, the Commission sought
comment on whether to label these other unvented heaters.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\The Commission found that, because all these products
operate with virtually the same efficiency, the cost that would be
incurred by industry in implementing label disclosures could not be
economically justified. The Commission determined that the cost of
testing and labeling would be substantial and would increase the
products' cost by about 3%. The evidence also did not indicate that
labeling would enable consumers to make more informed purchasing
decisions because these products are all essentially 100% efficient
in producing heat and operate with little variation in energy costs.
44 FR 66466, at 66468 (Nov. 19, 1979).
\151\49 FR 12148 (March 28, 1984).
\152\See 53 FR 22111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, after analyzing the comments on the issue, the
Commission tentatively concluded that unvented heaters fueled by
natural gas, propane and kerosene should be exempted from the Rule
because all models are 100% efficient. They are not vented to the
outside and, therefore, all the heat produced remains in the area being
heated. In addition, compared to the other products covered by the
Rule, they consume minor amounts of energy. The Commission found there
is no significant difference in operating cost among similarly sized
models and, therefore, that labels disclosing costs would not help
consumers make purchasing decisions.\153\ The Commission tentatively
concluded that requiring the labeling of these products would not be
economically feasible unless the cost of labeling were offset by some
significant benefit to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\The Commission assumed that consumers understand that
models that provide more heat cost more to operate. See 58 FR 12828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments addressed this issue. GAMA favored exempting these
products.\154\ CEC opposed an exemption, stating that the fact that
there is no real difference in efficiency among these unvented space
heaters is in itself an important piece of information that should be
communicated to consumers.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\GAMA, D-9, 2.
\155\CEC, DD-23, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has the discretion to exempt unvented heaters from
labeling if labeling would not be technologically or economically
feasible.\156\ The Commission finds that the cost of labeling would
exceed whatever benefit that consumers may obtain from learning that
all competing models of a product are about equal in efficiency. The
Commission concludes, therefore, that a labeling requirement is not
economically feasible, and exempts these products from the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1) and 6294(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Issues Not Raised in the 1988 NPR
1. Industry Proposal To Exempt Central Air Conditioners From Labeling
Requirements
In responding to the 1988 NPR, one manufacturer requested that the
Commission repeal the recently adopted requirement for product-specific
labels on central air conditioners. In discussing this comment in the
1993 NPR, the Commission stated that its reasoning for requiring
product-specific labels for central air conditioners is described in
the Statement of Basis and Purpose published with the central air
conditioner amendments,\157\ and that the comment did not contain any
new information to justify reconsidering the Rule's requirements in
this regard.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\52 FR 46888, 46891-2 (Dec. 10, 1987).
\158\See the discussion of Carrier's comment at 58 FR 12828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three comments addressed this issue. ARI favored repealing the
labeling requirement, contending that consumers do not use labels in
their purchasing decisions and that all that is needed is a directory
listing and a generic label referring consumers to it.\159\ CEC opposed
repealing the labeling requirement because the label information is
useful to consumers, to utilities with incentive rebate programs for
installation of efficient equipment, and to enforcement officials.\160\
Palmdale also described how labels on heating and cooling equipment are
useful to building code inspectors.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ARI, D-6, 1.
\160\CEC, DD-23, 21.
\161\Palmdale, DD-16, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ARI comment does not provide any new information to justify
repealing the central air conditioner labeling requirements. In
contrast, the CEC and Palmdale comments strongly suggest that the
information on central air conditioner labels is used by the public.
The Commission therefore concludes that the record supports retaining
the labeling requirement for central air conditioners.
2. Minor Revisions to the Rule
a. Descriptions of covered products. In the 1993 NPR, the
Commission stated that new definitions for certain products appear in
NAECA 87, and that the DOE test procedure product definitions, from
which the definitions in the Rule are derived, have been amended over
the years. As a result, some of the definitions of covered products in
section 305.3 of the Rule are no longer up-to-date.\162\ In addition,
DOE has approved test procedures for new product categories and has
adopted minimum efficiency standards pursuant to NAECA 87.\163\ Because
the Commission's Rule and DOE's test procedures and standards work in
tandem to regulate the products enumerated in EPCA, the Commission
proposed to revise the Rule's definitions to establish as much
consistency as possible with DOE's test procedures and standards to
avoid confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\See 58 FR 12828-29.
\163\For example, DOE developed a test procedure for a new
product category added by NAECA 87 (pool heaters) and test
procedures for two new types of water heaters (instantaneous water
heaters and heat pump water heaters.) Those products are being
addressed in a separate proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments generally supported these proposed amendments to the
Rule.\164\ No comments opposed them. The Commission, therefore, has
amended the definitions in accordance with the proposals in the 1993
NPR. The amended sections of the Rule describing covered products are
contained in ``Text of Amendments,'' below, at sections 305.3 (a), (b),
and (e) through (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ARI, D-6, 2; CEC, DD-23, 3, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Determinations of energy usage. Section 305.5 of the Rule refers
to the DOE test procedures that manufacturers must follow in
determining the energy usage figures to be used in complying with the
required disclosures. In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed amending
section 305.5 to reflect that the primary disclosure of energy usage on
labels for products that had disclosed estimated annual operating cost
would be in terms of either kilowatt-hour use per year or energy
factor, instead of estimated annual operating cost.\165\ Only CEC
commented on this, and it supported it.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\See 58 FR 12829.
\166\CEC, DD-23, 3, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is amending section 305.5 of the Rule. The section
will now refer to kilowatt-hours per year, therms per year, or gallons
per year because the Commission has decided to require the disclosure
of energy consumption descriptors rather than energy factors. See
section 305.5 in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
c. Determinations of capacity. Section 305.7 of the Rule
establishes the methodology for determining the capacity, or size, of
covered products. This is accomplished by a general definition of
capacity for each product followed by a reference to the specific
section of the DOE test that contains the procedure for determining the
capacity of the product. Because the DOE tests have been modified since
these references were published in the Rule, many references are now
incorrect. The Commission proposed, in the 1993 NPR, correcting the
references in section 305.7.
Two comments supported these proposed amendments and none opposed
them.167 Accordingly, the Commission has amended the references as
proposed in the 1993 NPR. See section 305.7 in ``Text of Amendments,''
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\67ARI, D-6, 2; CEC, DD-23, 3, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Past effective dates. Since the Rule was first published in
1979, section 305.18 has itemized the effective dates for the Rule's
various requirements for all the covered product categories. The
effective dates for the Rule's particular reporting requirements also
have appeared separately in Sec. 305.8(a). Because of various
amendments to the Rule over the years, Sec. 305.18 and, to a lesser
extent, Sec. 305.8(a) now list many different effective dates.
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed deleting Sec. 305.18
entirely and eliminating the effective dates provisions in
Sec. 305.8(a). The Commission tentatively found that their continued
inclusion in the codified version of the Rule is of questionable value,
that inclusion of all these effective dates in the Code of Federal
Regulations version of the Rule is optional, and that deleting them
will have no substantive effect on the Rule. The actual effective
dates, if of historical interest, can be found in the relevant Federal
Register notices. Finally, deletion of this information will simplify
the Rule and reduce printing costs. The only comment on this issue
supported the proposal.168 Accordingly, for the reasons previously
set forth, the Commission is amending the Rule by deleting Sec. 305.18
entirely and by eliminating the effective dates in Sec. 305.8(a). See
Secs. 305.8(a), 305.18 and 305.19 (which will be renumbered 305.18) in
``Text of Amendments,'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\68CEC, DD-23, 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
Currently, the Rule requires the use of the term ``Energy
Efficiency Rating (EER)'' to describe the energy usage of room air
conditioners, central air conditioners (including heat pumps), and
furnaces.169 The Commission adopted this single term so consumers
could learn to recognize and associate it with energy efficiency
measurement. The industry, however, describes the same rating with
several terms based on the product category: e.g., ``Energy Efficiency
Ratio (EER)'' for room air conditioners, ``Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency (AFUE)'' for furnaces, ``Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
(SEER)'' for central air conditioners and the cooling side of heat
pumps, and ``Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF)'' for the
heating side of heat pumps. These terms also are found in the DOE test
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\69Section 305.2(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1988 NPR comment period, several comments proposed
changing the Rule's use of the single term, ``EER,'' to the terms the
industry uses for each product category. The comments noted that,
although the term ``EER'' is used on labels, fact sheets and in
catalogs, the industry still uses the other terms extensively and most
consumers understand them.
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed amending section 305.2(i)
of the Rule to permit disclosure of the descriptors that are commonly
used by the industry and referenced in the DOE tests. Eight comments
addressed the proposal. Five supported it.170 CEC also urged that
the Commission not just allow use of the industry terms, but require
their use.171 Two comments said average consumers would not
understand the industry terms.172
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\70Amana, D-1, 3; ARI, D-6, 2; WSEO, DD-9, 1; Palmdale, DD-16,
1. In supporting the proposal, GAMA opined that the industry
descriptors could always have been used and that the Rule only needs
to be modified to reflect this fact more clearly. GAMA, D-9, 2.
\1\71CEC, DD-23, 21-22.
\1\72PSCNC, DD-1, 2; Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is not persuaded that average consumers will be
unable to understand the industry terms. In light of the general
support for this proposal, the Commission has decided to adopt these
instead of the term ``EER.'' Further, the Commission has decided to
follow CEC's suggestion and to mandate the use of these terms in
required disclosures. This will make the Rule consistent with DOE's
Minimum Efficiency Standards Rule and industry practice. See section
305.2(i) in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
4. New EnergyGuide Label Format
As discussed in Part IV.A.6., above, the 1993 NPR sought comment on
possible alternatives to dollar energy usage figures on labels, such as
energy factor or kilowatt-hour, therm, or gallon usage. In preparing
proposed sample labels displaying the new descriptors for public
comment, the Commission's staff determined that additional changes to
the labels were necessary. Specifically, the Commission needed to add
explanatory language for such terms as ``energy factor'' and
``kilowatt-hours per year,'' and needed to adjust the labels' design to
accommodate the disclosures proposed for clothes washers and
dishwashers. Finally, consumer research conducted by DOE in 1984 and
1985 had suggested that the current label format could benefit from
simplification.173
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\73See DOE materials at B-1 through B-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, therefore, prepared simplified labels that were
intended to be more ``user-friendly.'' In consultation with DOE's
Office of Codes and Standards, the Commission prepared three different
prototype dishwasher labels--a vertical graph, a bar graph, and one
that used the current horizontal graph configuration. The 1993 NPR also
included a fourth label that showed the bar graph against a grid
background, with the high end bar occupying the full height of the
graph and with the low end bar coming up only to the first line in the
grid.
The Commission conducted consumer research involving 120 shopping
mall consumers on the proposed alternative labels. The study showed
consumers preferred the bar graph format over the other two (as well as
over the current, dual-disclosure label). The Commission placed the
results of the study on the rulemaking record to aid the public in
commenting on the proposed labels.174
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\74See B-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to understand better how consumers perceive,
understand and use information on energy efficiency, the 1993 NPR
asked: how would ``energy factor'' and ``kilowatt-hour use per year''
be perceived and understood by consumers; what fuel cost figures and
what fuel cost figure intervals would be appropriate in the cost grids
on labels for certain appliances; how easy is it for consumers to use
the cost grids to compare the relative costs of alternative products;
and, would the costs to industry of newly designed labels be justified
by the improvement in communication. The Commission also asked whether
the Rule's dimension requirements for labels should be changed and for
other suggestions for improving label design.
The Commission has divided the discussion of the format of
EnergyGuide labels into two issues: format of the primary disclosure,
and cost grids.
a. Format of the primary disclosure. Eleven comments addressed the
format change issue. Five comments indicated a preference for one or
another of the proposed sample formats, thereby implicitly supporting
change from the current format.175 Six advocated keeping the
format of required labels the same or essentially the same.176
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\75Amana, D-1, 3; Speed Queen, D-8, 2; ACEEE, DD-8, 1; WSEO,
DD-9, 1-2; USEPA, DD-12, 1.
\1\76Whirlpool, D-3, 5; AHAM, D-5, 10-11; ARI, D-6, 2; GAMA, D-
9, 2; Mississippi Gas, DD-4, 4; Texas Gas, DD-15, 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the comments that expressed a preference for any of the
proposed sample labels favored Sample 4 (the bar graph with
grids).177 Speed Queen preferred the overall format of Sample 4,
but suggested that the lower half of Sample 3 was preferable because it
emphasized the definition of ``energy factor.''178 ACEEE and WSEO
preferred Sample 4 and suggested minor improvements.179 WSEO also
commented that the proposed changes to the labels are necessary to
improve their usefulness, and that the costs of the improvements will
probably be low compared to the benefits.180 USEPA preferred
Sample 4 because of the cross grids behind the bar graph and found it
the easiest to read and understand.181
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\77Amana, D-1, 3 (``no objection to the Sample 4''); Speed
Queen, D-8, 2; ACEEE, DD-8, 1; WSEO, DD-9, 1-2; USEPA, DD-12, 1.
\1\78Speed Queen, D-8, 2 (the comment noted that the definition
would not be necessary if kWh/cycle were used instead of energy
factor).
\1\79ACEEE appeared to recommend omitting the definition of
``energy factor'' from the bar graph box. DD-8, 2. WSEO suggested
rearrangement of some of the wording on the label and use of
``kilowatt-hour,'' rather than ``kilowatt.'' DD-9, 2-3.
\1\80WSEO DD-9, 3.
\1\81USEPA, DD-12, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool commented that the present horizontal format has been in
use for the past 13 years with no adverse consumer feedback that would
indicate misunderstanding or confusion about the ranges of
comparability. It further noted that maintaining consistency with the
present format would reduce costs to manufacturers and, ultimately, to
consumers. It also would reduce confusion and the need for reeducation
among retail salespeople and consumers.182 Whirlpool, Maytag and
AHAM asked that the EnergyGuide format be consistent with the Canadian
EnerGuide label format.183
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\82Whirlpool, D-3, 5.
\1\83Whirlpool, D-3, 5; Maytag, D-4, 4-5; AHAM, D-5, 11-12. The
Canadian label, which was provided in Attachments to both Maytag's
and AHAM's comments, is based on a horizontal scale similar to the
current EnergyGuide label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM opposed any format changes except to the extent necessary to
accommodate new energy usage descriptors because consumers have become
accustomed to reading the existing EnergyGuide labels.184 AHAM
suggested, however, as did Whirlpool, that the format be changed
slightly to allow for flexibility in size so labels could range between
5.25 and 5.50 inches in width, which would include the presently
required 5\5/16\'' width specification. According to Whirlpool, this
would provide some latitude to allow for minor variations in printing
operations.185
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\84AHAM, D-5, 11.
\1\85AHAM, D-5, 10-11; Whirlpool, D-3, 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speed Queen asked that labels not become larger, because the
present size specifications optimize the number of labels that can be
printed from a sheet of paper stock.186 Amana, Maytag, and AHAM
requested that the final label format be printable with manufacturers'
existing printing systems.187 ARI and GAMA commented that, if
labels are to be required, they should remain the same because none of
the proposed new formats would provide any significant, cost-
justifiable benefits.188
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\86Speed Queen, D-8, 2.
\1\87Amana, D-1, 3; Maytag, D-4, 3; AHAM, D-5, 12. None of these
comments, however, provided any specific information on how to
assure this.
\1\88ARI, D-6, 2; GAMA, D-9, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined not to make major changes in the
format of the primary energy usage disclosure on EnergyGuides except
those that are necessary because the Commission is amending the Rule to
require the use of new energy usage descriptors. The Commission also is
eliminating cost grids from labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, freezers, water heaters, clothes washers, dishwashers, and
room air conditioners. See the discussions in Parts IV.A.6. b. and c.,
above and IV.B.4.b., below. Consumers are familiar with the current
horizontal bar format, which has been in use for twelve years. The
Commission also has concluded that the record is inconclusive about the
need for and advantages of a different format for presentation of the
primary energy usage disclosure.189 Finally, retaining the
existing horizontal format of the primary disclosure has the advantage
of continued consistency with Canada's EnerGuide labels.190
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\89See comments of PSCNC, who questioned making decisions on
the basis of such a small consumer survey (DD-1, 1-2) and
Mississippi Gas, whose own consumer study suggests that the
Commission should conduct further study in its development of an
effective energy label (DD-4, 4).
\1\90See comments on this subject from Amana, D-1, 3; Whirlpool,
D-3, 5; Maytag, D-4, 3-4; AHAM, D-5, 2, 8-9; ARI, D-6, 3; Speed
Queen, D-8, 2; GAMA, D-9, 3. With their comments, AHAM and Maytag
provided copies of a marketing research study conducted by the
Canadian Government's Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources
(``EMR'') summarizing and discussing focus group interviews used to
test consumer comprehension of alternative energy label formats. EMR
conducted the study in connection with revisions to Canada's
``EnerGuide'' labels for appliances. Consumers were exposed to
alternative formats of labels disclosing three measures of energy
usage--energy efficiency, operating cost, or energy consumption.
The study indicated that a simple and clear disclosure of energy
consumption, in the form of kilowatt-hours per year, was the easiest
for consumers to understand. Labels disclosing estimated annual
operating cost or energy efficiency seemed to be more confusing. The
study also showed consumer preference for energy usage disclosure on
a scale measuring from ``low'' on the left to ``high'' on the right.
The revised label format that will be issued for final comment
by EMR discloses energy usage in the form of estimated annual energy
consumption (in kWh/yr.) over a horizontal bar showing the energy
usage range, with color shading increases in intensity from left to
right as energy consumption increases. The energy consumption of the
labeled appliance is indicated with a pointer located at the
appropriate position on the scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the context of the existing horizontal bar format, however,
the Commission is making certain changes to make the labels simpler and
more ``user-friendly.'' The Commission proposed many of these changes
as part of the Sample Labels in the 1993 NPR.191
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\91See proposed Sample Labels 1-4 at 58 FR 12847-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, to simplify the appearance of the labels overall, the
Commission has removed all text from the labels above the
``EnergyGuide'' logo and moved the phrase ``Based on standard U.S.
Government tests'' from its present location under the horizontal bar
so it appears as the only text immediately below the EnergyGuide logo.
The Commission has increased the size of the type of this phrase so
consumers can clearly see that the energy usage information is based on
government standards.192 The Commission also has changed the
arrangement of the text on the labels somewhat to maximize the use of
the free space resulting from the elimination of the cost grids and the
references to cost calculation that accompanied them (discussed in Part
IV.B.4.b., below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\92One of the findings in the DOE-sponsored assessment of
DOE's Appliance Labeling Rule consumer education program was that
labels must display more clearly the government's role in the tests
for the labeling program to have more credibility. B-3, 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, to emphasize to consumers that the information on the
labels is for use in comparative shopping (rather than to provide exact
energy usage of the appliance in the home), the Commission has added
the headline ``Compare the [Energy Use or Energy Efficiency ] of this
[Product] with Others Before You Buy.''
The Commission recognizes that, at least at first, the energy
consumption descriptors on the amended labels may not be as familiar to
consumers as the estimated annual dollar operating cost figures on the
current labels have been, and that the product-specific efficiency
descriptors may also seem unfamiliar. For each energy consumption
descriptor (kWh/year, therms per year, and gallons per year) and energy
efficiency descriptor (EER, SEER, AFUE, and HSPF), therefore, the
Commission will require that the labels include a simple definition.
Finally, the Commission also is amending slightly the size
requirements for the labels in section 305.11(a)(1) of the Rule to
permit some flexibility in the label's width, as requested by AHAM and
Whirlpool. This accommodates the needs of the industry and will have a
de minimis effect on label size consistency.
The above-described modifications are reflected in the amended
Sample Labels in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.
b. Cost grids. Labels for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and
freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, water heaters, and room air
conditioners currently contain cost grids to enable consumers to
estimate the annual operating cost of the product based on their own
utility rates. In the 1993 NPR, the Commission proposed that the
amended labels contain similar, although simpler, cost grids. One
element of these cost grids would be a range of costs for the fuel used
by the product (electricity, natural gas, etc.). The Commission asked
what cost figures and what intervals between the cost figures would be
appropriate. The Commission asked in particular how easy it is for
consumers to use the cost grid to compare the relative costs of
alternative products. Although the Commission did not propose
eliminating cost grids from the labels, the Commission asked for
suggestions for improving the design of the proposed labels.
Ten comments addressed these questions. Four supported the
continued use of cost grids, some suggesting minor
modifications.193 The other six ranged from questioning the need
for cost grids to recommending that they be eliminated from all
labels.194
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\93ACEEE, DD-8, 1-2; WSEO, DD-9, 2; Texas Gas, DD-15, 4; CEC,
DD-23, 24.
\1\94Amana, D-1, 3; Whirlpool, D-3, 4; Maytag, D-4, 3; AHAM, D-
5, 11; Laclede Gas, DD-20, 1-5; EGIA, DD-21, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACEEE commented that the cost grids, as shown on Sample Labels 1-4,
are well-designed and useful to the consumer. The comment, however,
suggested standardizing the ranges of costs for electricity and gas on
labels for all products, so every label would show the same fuel cost
numbers (and intervals between them) on the grids.195 WSEO said
the grids are helpful and simple and agreed with the cost figures and
the intervals between them.196 Texas Gas commented that the cost
grids are most useful for making cross-fuel comparisons and that the
grids on water heater labels should be expanded to show annual energy
costs for operation of the water heater on electricity, gas, and oil,
regardless of what fuel the labeled product actually uses.197 CEC
stated that the 1993 NPR cost grids are adequate.198
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\95ACEEE, DD-8, 1-2.
\1\96WSEO, DD-9, 2. WSEO noted, however, that the cost grids are
not the most important part of the label.
\1\97Texas Gas, DD-15, 4.
\1\98CEC, DD-23, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amana commented that cost grids are inappropriate for climate
control products because of the complexity of calculating heating and
cooling loads. Amana was concerned that large increments in energy cost
values on cost grids, caused by label space constraints, could confuse
consumers who have trouble calculating the costs. Amana stated that
Canada's energy label for refrigerators has for years disclosed kWh/
year with no cost grids.199
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\99Amana, D-1, 3. Canada's soon-to-be-revised Energuide labels
are not likely to require cost grids on labels for any covered
product categories. See Attachments to comments from Maytag and
AHAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool stated that the grids only approximate annual operating
cost, while kWh/cycle or kWh/year, in conjunction with local rates,
would provide precise cost figures. It recommended replacing the grids
with instructions on how to consult with a local utility company and to
calculate the annual operating cost based on kWh/cycle or kWh/
year.200 Maytag also recommended eliminating cost grids from all
labels, contending that they complicate the message of the label and
make it less likely to be used by consumers. Also, according to Maytag,
the grids are redundant because it is obvious that the more kilowatt-
hours of energy consumed, the more costly the operation of the product
will be.201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\00Whirlpool, D-3, 4.
\2\01Maytag, D-4, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHAM, while supporting the existing EnergyGuide format in general,
encouraged the Commission to eliminate cost grids from the labels. AHAM
cited a DOE study referenced in the 1993 NPR indicating that consumers
rarely use cost grids and often consider them to contain extraneous
information.202 AHAM also contended that eliminating the grids
would further harmonize the Commission's EnergyGuide labels with
Canada's EnerGuides.203
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\02See the 1993 NPR at 58 FR 12829 and B-2, 38-39. The same
discussion in the DOE study also includes the opinions of some
consumers who favored the cost grids.
\2\03AHAM, D-5, 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGIA commented that the cost grids are confusing to customers and,
therefore, confusing to salespeople.204 Laclede Gas, in opposing
the use of energy factors on water heater labels, noted that the
inclusion of simplified cost grids would not be sufficient to overcome
the distorted information provided by the energy factor
disclosure.205
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\04EGIA, DD-21, 2.
\2\05Laclede Gas, DD-20, 4. The comment was in opposition to the
proposal to require energy factors on water heater labels,
supplemented by a cost grid to enable consumers to estimate the
annual operating cost of the products based on local utility rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's authority to require cost grids is derived from
section 324(c)(5) of EPCA.206 This section permits, but does not
direct, the Commission to require additional information on labels
relating to energy consumption if the Commission determines that such
information would assist consumers in making purchasing decisions and
would not be unduly burdensome to manufacturers. Therefore, the
Commission has the authority to eliminate cost grids from labels if it
no longer believes that they will assist consumers in making purchasing
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\0642 U.S.C. 6294(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some industry members contended that consumers often find that the
cost grids are confusing and detract from the basic message of the
labels.207 As explained earlier, other amendments the Commission
is adopting will provide consumers with energy consumption information
that can be readily converted to provide the labeled product's
operating cost. Specifically, the Commission's adoption of estimated
annual energy consumption disclosures for refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, freezers, water heaters, clothes washers, and dishwashers
makes cost grids on labels for those products unnecessary because the
information they provide will now be available by multiplying the
energy consumption figure by an appropriate cost per kWh, therm or
gallon.208 Accordingly, the Commission has determined to eliminate
cost grids from labels for these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\07See Maytag, D-4, 2; AHAM, D-5, 11; EGIA, DD-21/ 2.
\2\08See Parts IV.A.6.a., b., and c., above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes, however, that consumers may want and
benefit from a simplified direct disclosure of estimated annual
operating cost. Therefore, the Commission will now require, on labels
for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes washers,
dishwashers, and water heaters, a statement that shows the operating
costs for the labeled product derived using the DOE annual average cost
for electricity, natural gas, propane, or heating oil, as appropriate.
This will provide consumers with an estimate, for purposes of
comparison, of the product's energy usage expressed as an operating
cost. The statement will identify the specific costs per unit for the
appropriate fuel and the year DOE published it. Because the statement
will not include operating cost ranges of comparability, however, the
Commission will require updating of these cost figures only in
connection with label changes occasioned by the publication of
revisions to the energy consumption ranges that must appear with the
primary energy consumption disclosure. The statement will read as
follows:
[Products] using more energy cost more to operate. This model's
estimated yearly operating cost is:
[Cost figure will be boxed] Based on a [Year] U.S. Government
national average cost of $______ per [kWh, therm, or gallon] for
[electricity, natural gas, propane, or oil]. Your actual operating cost
will vary depending on your local utility rates and your use of the
product.209
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\09For clothes washers and dishwashers, the statement will
read: [Product]s using more energy cost more to operate. This
model's estimated yearly operating cost is:
[Electric cost figure will be boxed] when used with an electric
water heater
[Gas cost figure will be boxed] when used with a natural gas
water heater
Based on a [Year] U.S. Government national average cost of
$______ per kWh for electricity, and $______ per therm for natural
gas. Your actual operating cost will vary depending on your local
utility rates and your use of the product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary energy usage disclosure on the current labels for room
air conditioners is an energy efficiency figure identified as an
``energy efficiency ratio (EER)'' in the industry.210 The labels
also must disclose a cost grid based on different costs per kWh for
electricity and different hours of use per year of the product. Like
the cost grids on current labels for the products just discussed, these
cost grids are complicated and occupy a significant amount of label
space. Although they are not being amended to disclose an energy
consumption descriptor like the amended labels for these other
products, the Commission believes that, as with the other labels, room
air conditioner labels would benefit by replacement of the cost grids
with the operating cost statement, and is amending the Rule to that
effect. The space on all these labels that was previously occupied by
the cost grids and text references to cost will be available for the
remaining text of the labels, which will be presented in a cleaner,
more readable format.211
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\10See the discussion of the Commission's adoption of industry
terms for required energy efficiency descriptors in Part IV.B.3.,
above.
\2\11See the discussion of the text of the labels in Part
IV.B.4.a., above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To implement the elimination of cost grids from labels, the
Commission is amending the Sample Labels for refrigerators,
refrigerator-freezers, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water
heaters, and room air conditioners. The Commission also is amending the
Appendices that pertain to these categories to delete the cost grid
materials there contained (see Appendices A1-F in ``Text of
Amendments,'' below) as well as the section of the Rule that requires
cost grids to be on labels for these products (see section
305.11(a)(5)(i)(H) in ``Text of Amendments,'' below.)
V. Miscellaneous Issues
Several comments submitted in response to the 1993 NPR raised
issues that the Commission has not identified for comment, or were
related only indirectly to the proposals in the NPR. These issues are
discussed below.
A. Effective Date
AHAM and ARI requested, without elaboration, that the Commission
allow six months until the amendments become effective.212 Section
324 of EPCA provides that a labeling rule must take effect not later
than three months after the date it is prescribed, except that the
effective date can be extended to six months if the Commission
determines that such extension is necessary to allow adequate time for
compliance.213 Because of the nature and extent of the amendments
being announced today, and in view of the request by the two trade
associations, the Commission finds that the six-month period is
necessary to allow those who are subject to the Rule to come into
compliance with the amendments. The effective date of these amendments,
therefore, will be six months from the date of their publication in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\12AHAM, D-5, 14; ARI, D-6, 5.
\2\1342 U.S.C. 6294(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Central Air Conditioner Labeling
ARI requested that the Commission amend the Rule to require
manufacturers of split-system central air conditioners and the
evaporator coils (sometimes sold separately) that are a part of them to
base their representations of energy usage on the DOE test
procedures.214 ARI also suggested that certain disclosures on
central air conditioner labels be amended.215 The Commission
believes that soliciting public comment on the proposal in the Federal
Register may be required before imposing such an amendment.216 The
Commission will take these suggestions under advisement for future
amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\14ARI, D-6, 3-4. Split system central air conditioners
consist of a condensing unit, which is usually installed outside,
and an evaporator coil, which is installed in the duct work inside
the house. These two parts can be purchased from the same
manufacturer or from two different manufacturers.
\2\15ARI asked that the text on central air conditioner labels
be changed to eliminate, from the following statement, the assertion
that ratings may vary ``slightly'': ``This energy rating is based on
U.S. Government standard tests of this condenser model combined with
the most common coil. The rating will vary slightly with different
coils and in different geographic regions.'' ARI also asked that the
statement suggest that consumers contact dealers for the actual
efficiency rating of the purchased combination.
\2\1642 U.S.C. 6306(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Cost Grids and Furnace Labeling
ACEEE made several suggestions pertaining to figures and
disclosures for use on cost grids.217 Because the Commission is
eliminating cost grids from labels on refrigerators, refrigerator-
freezers, freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters, and
room air conditioners, these suggestions are no longer relevant. ACEEE
also provided an alternative Heat Loss Table for use with the
Appendices pertaining to furnaces.218 The Commission cannot modify
the Heat Loss Tables, however, because they are provided by DOE as a
part of the test procedure for furnaces.219
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\17ACEEE, DD-8, 1-3. For example, ACEEE suggested a map
showing regional zones for room air conditioners similar to the map
used for central air conditioners.
\2\18Id., at 3.
\2\1942 U.S.C. 324(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Water Use Disclosures
USEPA suggested that the Rule be expanded to include a disclosure
of the water-use efficiency of appliances that use water.220
Because EPCA does not give the Commission the authority to require such
disclosures, the Commission cannot expand the Rule as USEPA requests.
In a related matter, however, the Commission recently has amended the
Rule to require disclosure of the water use of certain plumbing
products, in accordance with a directive in the Energy Policy Act of
1992.221
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\20USEPA, DD-12, 1-2.
\2\21See 58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Data Submissions, Ranges of Comparability, and Testing
CEC suggested specific revisions to three sections of the Rule.
First, CEC suggested that section 305.8 be amended so required
submissions of data could be made to the Commission ``or its designated
representative.''222 Second, CEC requested adding language to
section 305.9 that would give the Commission the authority to change
the ranges of comparability in circumstances other than when the range
limits change by more than 15%.223 Third, CEC proposed several
changes to section 305.16, which relates to required testing by
designated laboratories for enforcement purposes. CEC stated that the
section should clarify whether ``no more than two'' samples must be
tested and should provide for verification testing without the notice
and reverification procedures currently in the section, and that the
Commission should not pay for the tests when they are required.224
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\22CEC, DD-23, 27-28.
\2\23Id., 28.
\2\24Id., 28-30. j
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission appreciates CEC's suggestions. However, before
adopting any such amendments, the Commission would need to solicit
public comment on them. The Commission will take these suggestions
under advisement for possible future amendment proceedings.
VI. Metric Usage
Section 205b of the Metric Conversion Act, as amended by the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, states that the metric
measurement system is the preferred system of weights and measures in
the United States.225 It also requires federal agencies to use the
metric system in all procurements, grants and other business-related
activities (which include rulemakings), except to the extent that such
use is impractical or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or
loss of markets to United States firms. Because of its general support
of the policy stated in the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act, the
Commission solicited comment, in the 1993 NPR, on three areas of the
Rule (described below) with a potential for the use of metric terms--
either in place of or in addition to inch-pound measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\2515 U.S.C. 205b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Commission asked whether section 305.11(a) of the Rule
should specify the dimensions of the required EnergyGuides in metric or
dual terms, or remain unchanged. Second, the Commission solicited
comment on whether the Rule should require that the capacity
descriptors for covered products be expressed in metric or dual
terms.226 Manufacturers must annually submit to the Commission
energy efficiency data on their products, based on DOE tests, that are
categorized on the basis of these capacity descriptors. These data then
form the basis for the ranges of comparability on the EnergyGuides. See
section 305.8 of the Rule. The Commission asked whether to leave the
present requirements unchanged, or to require the reports to the
Commission and/or the disclosures on the EnergyGuides to be in metric
or in dual terms. Third, the cost grids currently required on
EnergyGuides for clothes washers, dishwashers, and water heaters show,
as one factor of the grid, a fuel cost expressed in terms of kilowatt-
hours for electricity, therms for natural gas, and gallons for heating
oil. None of these is a completely metric term. See Appendices C, D,
and F. The Commission solicited comment on whether to require metric or
dual disclosures, or to leave the present requirements unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\26Currently, section 305.7 of the Rule requires that the
capacity descriptors for some products be in inch-pound measurement:
cubic feet for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers and freezers,
Btu's for climate control products, and first hour rating in gallons
for water heaters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ten comments addressed the issue of metric usage.227 Only CEC
supported adopting metric or dual measurements in any of the Rule's
requirements. The others recommended leaving the Rule unchanged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\27Amana, D-1, 4; Whirlpool, D-3, 6; AHAM, D-5, 12-13; ARI, D-
6, 2-3; Speed Queen, D-8, 1; GAMA, D-9, 2-3; ACEEE, DD-8, 2; Texas
Gas, DD-15, 5-6; Laclede Gas, DD-20, 6; CEC, DD-23, 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC recommended that the dimension specifications for the labels
and the capacity descriptors on labels be specified in dual terms. CEC
stated that the Rule should continue to allow that submissions be made
in inch-pound units because Commission staff could make the conversion
to metric units more easily after preparing ranges of comparability. On
cost grids, CEC recommended keeping kWh without inch-pound equivalents,
and requiring that therms and gallons be disclosed with their metric
equivalents.228
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\28CEC, DD-23, 25-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amana, Speed Queen and Texas Gas opposed amending the label
dimension specifications.229 Amana contended that there is no
benefit to metric dimensioning, and Speed Queen stated that metric or
dual dimensions would most likely conflict with printing industry
standards for type font sizing and spacing.230
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\29Amana, D-1, 4; Speed Queen, D-8, 1; Texas Gas, DD-15,5-6.
\2\30Amana, D-1, 4; Speed Queen, D-8, 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the comments that opposed requiring label disclosures in
metric or dual units stated that the labels with metric or dual
disclosures would be cluttered and complicated,231 would confuse
consumers,232 and would be less ``consumer-friendly,'' contrary to
the Commission's goals in revising label format.233 GAMA contended
that consumers would not understand metric terms and that the DOE tests
do not use them. GAMA further stated that a dual disclosure requirement
would make the already full GAMA Directory confusing and
unwieldy.234 ACEEE stated that dual or metric disclosures would
educate consumers as to metric measurements but confuse them as to
energy usage and complicate the labels.235
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\31ARI, D-6, 2; ACEEE, DD-8, 2; Texas Gas, DD-15, 5-6; Laclede
Gas, DD-20, 6.
\2\32ARI, D-6, 2; Speed Queen, D-8, 1; ACEEE, DD-8, 2; Laclede
Gas, DD-20, 6.
\2\33Whirlpool, D-3, 6; Speed Queen, D-8, 1; ACEEE, DD-8, 2.
\2\34GAMA, D-9, 2-3.
\2\35ACEEE, DD-8, 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four comments contended that requirements to submit or disclose
capacities in metric or dual terms would be place a burden on the
industry, although none quantified the burden.236 AHAM and Texas
Gas declared that a change to metric or dual disclosures would be
burdensome, and Amana predicted that the use of dual terms would add
time to the preparation of data submissions.237 ARI stated that
requiring submissions in metric terms would defeat the purpose of
permitting industry efficiency descriptors (such as ``AFUE'' and
``SEER''), and that showing information on labels in metric terms would
be a burden on industry that would not benefit consumers.238
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\36Amana, D-1, 4; AHAM, D-5, 13; ARI, D-6, 2-3; Texas Gas, DD-
15, 5.
\2\37AHAM, D-5, 13; Texas Gas, DD-15, 5; Amana, D-1, 4.
\2\38ARI, D-6, 2-3. See discussion of industry efficiency
descriptors at Part IV.B.3., above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has determined that requiring manufacturers to
disclose label information in metric terms could cause significant
inefficiencies by confusing consumers. As ACEEE stated, such a
requirement may raise consumers' awareness of metric terms, but at the
expense of the basic purpose of the labeling program--effective
communication of energy usage of labeled products. The Commission also
has concluded that dual disclosures would unacceptably complicate
labels. Because the Rule will not require metric or dual disclosures on
labels, the Commission is not requiring submissions in those terms.
To support the policy articulated in the Metric Conversion Act, the
Commission is amending section 305.11(a)(1) of the Rule to have it
express the dimensions of the labels in inch-pound and metric units.
The Commission is leaving unchanged the font, type-point-size and pica
specifications in the sample labels that show them, however, because
they are for use only by the printing industry in setting up and
producing the labels and because there are no direct metric equivalents
for them.239
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\39The Commission could require that the dimensions of the
printed areas of the labels and the type size specifications be
expressed in millimeters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In the 1988 NPR, the Commission concluded, on a preliminary basis,
that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not necessary for
the proposed amendments to the Rule because the amendments, if
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.240 The Commission stated
that its conclusion was based on information presently available and
requested comment on the subject. No comments were received on this
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\40See Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603-605; see also
53 FR 22113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1993 NPR, the Commission again sought comment on this issue.
No comments were received. Accordingly, the Commission has no reason to
believe that the amendments it is adopting will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
First, the amendments relating to energy usage disclosures for
furnaces will not have a significant impact because the two proposed
changes are likely to offset each other in terms of cost and burden. To
the extent that manufacturers will have to prepare the product-specific
labels, instead of the labels presently required, they will incur
somewhat greater administrative and printing expenses. This will be
offset, to some extent, because they will be able to disclose required
information in an industry directory instead of preparing fact sheets.
Overall, the Commission expects that most firms, regardless of size,
will experience a reduction of expense primarily because of lower
printing costs.
Second, the amendments relating to the creation of new range sub-
categories for furnaces, room air conditioners, clothes washers,
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers will not have a
significant economic impact. The amendments will impose few, if any,
additional costs. In addition, these products would now be categorized
in accordance with the subdivisions in DOE's minimum efficiency
standards program, making it administratively easier for the affected
organizations, which will no longer be required to comply with two sets
of similar, but inconsistent, regulations.
Finally, the amendments relating to the use of a different label
format and different energy usage descriptors on labels will not have a
significant economic impact. Although there will be a small initial
cost in changing current labels, the cost is likely to be offset in
future years because fewer annual label changes are likely to be
required with the use of the new descriptors which, unlike current
dollar descriptors, will not be subject to annual changes.
Because it appears, on the basis of evidence presently available,
that these changes will not be likely to have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and its implementing regulation, the
Commission concludes that a final regulatory flexibility analysis is
unnecessary. In light of the above, the Commission certifies, under the
provisions of Section 5 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the
amendments it is adopting today will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.241
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\415 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act
In the 1988 NPR, the Commission stated that the Rule contains
disclosure and reporting requirements that constitute ``information
collection requirements'' as defined by 5 C.F.R. 1320.7(c), the
regulation that implements the Paperwork Reduction Act
(``PRA'').242 The Commission noted that the Rule had been reviewed
and approved in 1984 by the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
and assigned OMB Control No. 3084-0068. Since the 1988 NPR was
published, the Supreme Court has determined that agency regulations
requiring disclosures to third parties are not subject to the
PRA.243 OMB has again reviewed the Rule and extended its approval
for its recordkeeping and reporting requirements until February 28,
1996. The amendments now being adopted do not alter the recordkeeping
or reporting requirements and, therefore, do not require further OMB
clearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\4244 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
\2\43Dole v. United Steelworkers of America, 494 U.S. 26 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances,
Incorporation by reference, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water conservation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 16 CFR is amended as
follows:
Text of Amendments
PART 305--RULE CONCERNING DISCLOSURES REGARDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
AND WATER USE OF CERTAIN HOME APPLIANCES AND OTHER PRODUCTS
REQUIRED UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (``APPLIANCE
LABELING RULE'')
1. Part 305 is amended by revising the heading to read as set forth
above.
2. The authority citation for part 305 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.
3. Sections 305.2 (h) through (j) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 305.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(h) Estimated annual energy consumption and estimated annual
operating cost. (1) Estimated annual energy consumption means the
energy or (for products described in sections 305.3(k)-(n)) water that
is likely to be consumed annually in representative use of a consumer
product, as determined in accordance with tests prescribed under
section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293).
(i) Kilowatt-hour use per year, or kWh/yr., means estimated annual
energy consumption expressed in kilowatt-hours of electricity.
(ii) Therm use per year, or therms/yr., means estimated annual
energy consumption expressed in therms of natural gas.
(iii) Gallon use per year, or gallons/yr., means estimated annual
energy consumption expressed in gallons of propane or No. 2 heating
oil.
(2) Estimated annual operating cost means the aggregate retail cost
of the energy that is likely to be consumed annually in representative
use of a consumer product, as determined in accordance with tests
prescribed under section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293).
(i) Energy efficiency rating means the following product-specific
energy usage descriptors: ``annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE)''
for furnaces; ``energy efficiency ratio (EER)'' for room air
conditioners; ``seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER)'' for the
cooling function of central air conditioners and heat pumps; and,
``heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF)'' for the heating function
of heat pumps, as all four descriptors are determined in accordance
with tests prescribed under section 323 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 6293).
These product-specific energy usage descriptors shall be used in
satisfying all the requirements of this part.
(j) Range of estimated annual energy consumption means the range of
estimated annual energy consumption per year of all models within a
designated range of comparability.
* * * * *
4. Sections 305.3 (a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 305.3 Description of covered products to which this part applies.
(a) Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. (1) Electric
refrigerator means a cabinet designed for the refrigerated storage of
food at temperatures above 32 deg.F., and having a source of
refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current electric
energy input only. An electric refrigerator may include a compartment
for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 32 deg.F.,
but does not provide a separate low temperature compartment designed
for the freezing and storage of food at temperatures below 8 deg.F. An
``all-refrigerator'' is an electric refrigerator which does not include
a compartment for the freezing and long time storage of food at
temperatures below 32 deg.F (0.0 deg.C). An ``all-refrigerator'' may
include a compartment of 0.50 cubic capacity (14.2 liters) or less for
the freezing and storage of ice.
(2) Electric refrigerator-freezer means a cabinet which consists of
two or more compartments with at least one of the compartments designed
for the refrigerated storage of food at temperatures above 32 deg.F.
and with at least one of the compartments designed for the freezing and
storage of food at temperatures below 8 deg.F. which may be adjusted
by the user to a temperature of 0 deg.F. or below. The source of
refrigeration requires single phase, alternating current electric
energy input only.
(b) Freezer means a cabinet designed as a unit for the freezing and
storage of food at temperatures of 0 deg.F. or below, and having a
source of refrigeration requiring single phase, alternating current
electric energy input only.
* * * * *
5. Section 305.3 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(1) and
reserving paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 305.3 Description of covered products to which this part applies.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Water Heating Dishwasher means a dishwasher which is designed
for heating cold inlet water (nominal 50 deg.F.) or a dishwasher for
which the manufacturer recommends operation with a nominal inlet water
temperature of 120 deg.F. and may operate at either of these inlet
water temperatures by providing internal water heating to above 120
deg.F. in at least one wash phase of the normal cycle.
6. Section 305.3(e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 305.3 Description of covered products to which this part applies.
* * * * *
(e) Room air conditioner means a consumer product, other than a
packaged terminal air conditioner, which is powered by a single phase
electric current and which is an encased assembly designed as a unit
for mounting in a window or through the wall for the purpose of
providing delivery of conditioned air to an enclosed space. It includes
a prime source of refrigeration and may include a means for ventilating
and heating.
* * * * *
7. Section 305.3(f) introductory text is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 305.3 Description of covered products to which this part applies.
* * * * *
(f) Clothes washer means a consumer product designed to clean
clothes, utilizing a water solution of soap and/or detergent and
mechanical agitation or other movement, and must be one of the
following classes: automatic clothes washers, semi-automatic clothes
wash
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.