Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Applicances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and

Water Use of Certain Home Applicances and Other Products Required Under

the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``the Commission'') proposes

amending Appendix F to its Appliance Labeling Rule (``the Rule'') to

eliminate the ``Front-Loading'' and ``Top-Loading'' sub-categories for

clothes washers.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until December 17, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal

Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20580. Comments about this proposed amendment to the

Appliance Labeling Rule should be identified as: ``Appliance Labeling

Rule Clothes Washer Categories, 16 CFR Part 305--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Mills, Attorney, Division of

Enforcement, Rm 4616, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580

(202-326-3035).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule

The Commission issued the Appliance Labeling Rule on November 19,

1979, pursuant to a directive in section 324 of Title III of the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. 6294 (``EPCA''). The

Rule requires manufacturers to disclose energy information about major

household appliances to enable consumers purchasing appliances to

compare the energy use or efficiency of competing models. When

published, the Rule applied to eight appliance categories:

Refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water

heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and furnaces. Since

then, the Commission has expanded the Rule's coverage five times: in

1987 (central air conditioners, heat pumps, and certain new types of

furnaces, 52 FR 46888 (Dec. 10, 1987)); 1989 (fluorescent lamp

ballasts, 54 FR 28031 (July 5, 1989)); 1993 (certain plumbing products,

58 FR 54955 (Oct. 25, 1993)); and twice in 1994 (certain lighting

products, 59 FR 25176 (May 13, 1994)), and pool heaters and certain

other types of water heaters (59 FR 49556 (Sept. 28, 1994)).

Manufacturers of all covered appliances must disclose specific

energy consumption or efficiency information at the point of sale in

the form of an ``EnergyGuide'' label affixed to the covered product.

The information on the EnergyGuide also must appear in catalogs from

which covered products can be ordered. Manufacturers must derive the

information from standardized tests that EPCA directs the Department of

Energy (``DOE'') to promulgate. 42 U.S.C. 6293. Manufacturers of

furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps also either must

provide fact sheets showing additional cost information or be listed in

an industry directory that shows the cost information for their

products. Required labels for appliances and required fact sheets for

heating and cooling equipment must include a highlighted energy

consumption or efficiency disclosure and a ``range of comparability,''

which appears as a bar on the label below the main energy use or

efficiency figure, that shows the highest and lowest energy consumption

or efficiencies for all similar appliance models. Labels for clothes

washers and some other appliance products also must disclose estimated

annual operating cost based on a specified national average cost for

the fuel the appliances use.

B. Ranges of Comparability and the Categories in Appendix F

The ``range of comparability'' on the EnergyGuide is intended to

enable consumers to compare the energy consumption or efficiency of the

other models (perhaps competing brands) in the marketplace that are

similar to the labeled model they are considering. Section 305.8(b) of

the Rule, 16 CFR 305.8(b), requires manufacturers to report annually

(by specified dates for each product type) the estimated annual energy

consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived

from the DOE test procedures. To keep the required information on

labels consistent with these changes, the Commission publishes new

range figures (but not more often than annually) for manufacturers to

use on labels if an analysis of the reported information indicates that

the upper or lower limits of the ranges have changed by more than 15%.

16 CFR 305.10. Otherwise, the Commission publishes a statement that the

prior ranges remain in effect for the next year.

Each category of the products covered by the Rule is divided to

some extent into sub-categories for purposes of the ranges of

comparability. These subcategories, which are the same as those

developed by DOE in connection with its efficiency standards

program,1 are based on fuel type, size, and/or functional

features, depending on the type of product.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Section 325 of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6295, directs DOE to develop

efficiency standards for major household appliances to achieve the

maximum improvement in energy efficiency for residential appliances

that is technologically feasible and economically justified. As

amended, the statute itself sets the initial national standards for

appliances and establishes a schedule for regular DOE review of the

standards for each product category.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Commission published the Rule in 1979, the clothes washer

category in Appendix F was divided into the sub-categories ``Standard''

and

[[Page 58672]]

``Compact'' only. 44 FR 66466, 66486 (Nov. 19, 1979). These sub-

categories stayed in effect until 1994, when the Commission amended

Appendix F in response to comments received in connection with a

comprehensive review of the Rule. The amendment to Appendix F created

the additional subdivisions of ``Top Loading'' and ``Front Loading''

that appear in the current Rule. In the Federal Register notice

announcing the amendments that grew out of the review, the Commission

discussed the comments on clothes washer subcategories and its reasons

for the amendment to Appendix F:

Four comments * * * suggested changing the subcategories for

clothes washers by adding two further subdivisions--horizontal axis

and vertical axis. In support, AHAM (the Association of Home

Appliance Manufacturers, a trade association of appliance

manufacturers) 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.

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 * * * amending the sub-categories for

clothes washers to reflect a further subdivision into top-loading

and front-loading models. See Appendix F--Clothes Washers.

59 FR 34014, 34019 (July 1, 1994).

C. CEE's Petition

The Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Inc. (``CEE'') 2

has petitioned the Commission to amend the Rule by changing the clothes

washer category in Appendix F to eliminate the ``Front-Loading'' and

``Top-Loading'' subdivisions of the ``Standard'' and ``Compact'' sub-

categories. In its petition, CEE stated that, since 1994, it has

promoted the manufacture of and consumer demand for high-efficiency

clothes washers through its High-efficiency Clothes Washer Initiative.

CEE asserted that, because of the recent introduction of high-

efficiency products from major domestic manufacturers, it is at a

critical point in its efforts to promote high-efficiency clothes

washers, and its members have committed to significant expansions of

their consumer-targeted campaigns to promote the purchase of these

products. CEE believes that Appendix F to the Rule confuses consumers

and undermines CEE's and its members' efforts to promote high-

efficiency clothes washers. In its petition, CEE indicates that

eliminating the ``Front-Loading'' and ``Top-Loading'' subdivisions of

the ``Standard'' and ``Compact'' sub-categories will remedy these

concerns.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ According to its Mission Statement, CEE is a non-profit,

public benefit corporation that expands national markets for super-

efficient technologies, using market transformation strategies. Its

members include more than 40 electric and gas utilities, public

interest groups, research and development organizations, and state

energy offices. Major support is provided to CEE by DOE and the

Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'').

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CEE asserts that, since the Commission's 1994 statement in the

Federal Register, the clothes washer market has changed, and front-

loading washers are no longer merely a niche product. According to CEE,

consumer research in the Northwest has shown that a significant

proportion of consumers who were shopping for top-loading machines were

also interested in, and had looked at, front-loading models, and that

many were ready to pay a premium for the front-loading models. The

research showed that many consumers could be persuaded to purchase

front-loading washers at the point of sale, suggesting that they did

not have pre-determined reasons in mind for buying a front-loading

model when they began their search.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ A summary by CEE of the results of the intercept interviews

and surveys CEE cited in its petition has been placed on the public

rulemaking record.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CEE explains that, because the most highly efficient clothes

washers are all front-loading,4 an EnergyGuide comparison

only among front-loading models provides an incomplete picture of the

efficiencies available in the clothes washer market. According to the

petition, the least efficient of the high-efficiency front-loading

clothes washers, will, of necessity, appear at the ``Uses Most Energy''

end of the comparability range on the label attached to it, even though

it consumes only half the energy that the average top-loading model

does. This situation, according to CEE, confuses consumers and creates

the erroneous impression that these highly-efficient products (when

compared to top-loading models) are high energy users.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ There is an exception, mentioned later in CEE's petition:

One manufacturer makes a horizontal-axis, highly efficient washer

that loads from the top and is thus classified as a ``Top Loading''

model.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CEE also asserts that the current front-loading and top-loading

subdivisions are particularly problematical in connection with the DOE/

EPA Energy Star Program.5 Under that Program, all front-

loading clothes washers produced by manufacturers participating in the

Program will qualify for the Energy Star logo. This means that the

label on the least energy efficient of these highly efficient products

will indicate that the product ``Uses Most Energy'' while also bearing

the Energy Star endorsement. CEE believes that this situation will

create consumer confusion and undermine the credibility of both the

EnergyGuide and Energy Star Programs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Commission staff have been working with DOE and EPA staff to

help them implement statutory directives to promote high-efficiency

household appliances in the marketplace. The resulting joint effort

is called the ``Energy Star'' Program, which defines what

constitutes a high-efficiency product and identifies products that

qualify for the designation. A product's qualification for the

Program is indicated by the Energy Star logo, currently either on

the product or a separate Energy Star label. A proposal is under

consideration to permit manufacturers of qualifying appliances to

place the Energy Star logo on the Appliance Labeling Rule

EnergyGuides attached to the products.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, CEE points out that the Canadian EnerGuide appliance

labeling program (which is very similar to the EnergyGuide Program)

does not distinguish between front-loading and top-loading clothes

washers for range purposes. The Canadian Program divides the clothes

washer category into only the ``Compact'' and ``Standard'' sub-

categories.

Finally, CEE asserts that technological advances in the clothes

washer industry have begun to soften the distinction between the front-

loading and top-loading subdivisions. As examples, CEE cites the Maytag

Neptune model, which has a basket that operates on an axis that is 15

degrees off of vertical and an opening mounted on a plane angled

between the top and front of the machine (Maytag classifies this as a

front-loading model), and the Staber Industries horizontal axis model

that loads from the top (and is thus a top-loading model). CEE

maintains that, perhaps in recognition of this incipient blurring of

the distinction between the subdivisions, DOE is considering

eliminating the separate classes from its testing and standards

program. CEE urges that the Commission grant its petition to help

achieve consistency on this issue at the federal level.

II. Discussion

A. Market Changes

The market for clothes washers has changed since the Commission

[[Page 58673]]

promulgated the ``Front-loading'' and ``Top-loading'' subdivisions.

While in 1993-94 front-loading machines may merely have been a

``niche'' product, as suggested by AHAM's comment (referenced in I.B.,

above), the availability of and technology for these products have

advanced considerably since that time.6 There are currently

ten front-loading models out of the total of 228 models that were

reported to the Commission in March of this year, compared to the five

models offered in 1993-94. CEE's research suggests that a significant

proportion of consumers now shopping for clothes washers are receptive

to the idea of buying a more efficient front-loading machine--even if

they began by looking for a top-loading model. This, coupled with the

significant increase in availability of front-loading models, suggests

that eliminating the distinction between the two subdivisions on labels

could result in more purchases of the more efficient products.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ These products may have been considered a niche market in

part because they were so much more expensive than top-loading

models and because they may have been favored by consumers with

limited space looking for stackable models. Although front-loading

models are on average still more expensive than top-loading, the

price differential is now much smaller. See ``A New Spin on Clothes

Washers,'' Consumer Reports (July 1998).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are other indications that the current ``Front-loading'' and

``Top-loading'' subdivisions may be causing confusion among consumers

shopping for clothes washers. Commission staff has received two

letters, dated April 27, 1998, and May 19, 1998, in support of CEE's

petition from the Office of Energy of the Oregon Department of Consumer

and Business Services (``Oregon Energy Office,'' or

``OEO'').7 In the April 27 letter, the Oregon Energy Office

asserts that there is no reason for or benefit from leaving the

subdivisions of the clothes washer category as they are. In the May 19

letter, OEO reiterates its support, noting the specific example of the

Maytag Neptune model and stating that DOE does not consider loading

method in its clothes washer test procedure and is considering phasing

the top-loading and front-loading subdivisions out of the energy

standards for the clothes washer product category. In both letters, the

Oregon Energy Office expresses concern that consumers are confused by

the current subdivisions and that such confusion undermines consumer

confidence in the EnergyGuide itself, which, according to OEO, has been

rising steadily since the Rule was promulgated in 1979.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ These two letters have been placed on the public rulemaking

record.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This consumer confusion may occur because, although the label for

clothes washers states that ``Only standard size, front-loading (or

top-loading) clothes washers are used in this scale,'' not all

consumers may notice the disclosure. Consumers looking at top-loading

machines may not realize how much more efficient front-loading models

are, and may not even consider purchasing a front-loading model simply

because the energy consumption figures for front-loading machines are

not included in the ranges appearing on labels for top-loading models.

And, consumers shopping for front-loading machines may get the

incorrect impression that some of the most efficient models (front-

loading) on the market are not really highly energy efficient, only

because they are being compared unfavorably to other even higher-

efficiency models (also front-loading), instead of to the less

efficient top-loading models. Finally, because some front-loading

clothes washers that have qualified for the Energy Star logo are shown

on the EnergyGuide to be at or near the ``Uses Most Energy'' end of the

comparability bar, this may cause consumer confusion about the Energy

Star Program.

On the other hand, without the subdivisions, it may be more

difficult for consumers to determine the range of energy use

possibilities for each type of washer. Thus, for a consumer who,

because of price or some other reason, wishes to purchase a top-loading

washer, the proposed amendment would make it more difficult to

determine which top-loading machine achieves the highest energy

efficiency possible for a top-loader. Although a given retail outlet

will likely have several brands and models for comparison, and such a

consumer would be able to find the most efficient top-loader in the

store by comparing EnergyGuides, the consumer still would not know

whether he should seek other choices, say, by going to another

retailer. Consumers' search costs should not be significantly

increased, however, because consumers already do not know the range of

possibilities for other characteristics (such as price) of the washer,

and thus already need to search various retailers.

B. The DOE Energy Conservation Standards and Possible Changes to the

DOE Test Procedure

DOE has announced that it may eliminate any reference to front-

loading or top-loading (or horizontal-or vertical-axis) in its

standards for clothes washers. In connection with its review of the

energy and water consumption standards for clothes washers, DOE

published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on November 14,

1994, in which it indicated its intention to consider only two classes

for the clothes washer category--``Compact'' and ``Standard.'' 59 FR

56423, at 56425. Later in the review process, DOE issued a Draft Report

on Design Options for Clothes Washers for use in a November 1996 DOE

workshop in which DOE again proposed reducing the number of clothes

washer categories to ``Compact'' and ``Standard.'' In July 1997, DOE

published a draft Clothes Washer Rulemaking Framework, which DOE staff

describes as a ``roadmap'' for the review process. In that document,

DOE stated that it ``believes that there is no basis for maintaining

separate classes for horizontal and vertical clothes

washers.''8 Thus, when DOE completes its review of the

clothes washer standards rule, it is reasonable to expect that DOE will

no longer use the ``Front-loading'' and ``Top-loading'' (or

``horizontal-axis'' and ``vertical-axis'') subdivisions to describe

clothes washers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Although the current DOE test procedure for clothes washers

(``Appendix J'') contains separate definitions for ``front-loader,''

``top-loader-horizontal-axis,'' and ``top-loader-vertical-axis''

clothes washers, it does not materially distinguish between top-

loading or front-loading, or horizontal axis or vertical axis, in

measuring the energy consumption of clothes washers. 10 CFR part

430, subpart B, Appendix J, 1.7, 1.23, and 1.24 (1998).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In an August 14, 1998 letter to Commission staff, DOE's Assistant

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy asked that the

Commission consider eliminating the top-loading and front-loading

subcategories for clothes washers because they are causing consumer

confusion about washer efficiency and appear to be undermining the

Energy Star Program's credibility. The Assistant Secretary also stated

that, although the amendments to DOE's rules will not take effect for

several years, DOE believes ``that it is in the consumer's best

interest for FTC to adopt the new classifications for labeling purposes

as soon as possible.'' Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on

whether, if the proposed amendment were adopted, it should postpone the

effective date to coincide with DOE's changes, or whether the proposed

amendment should be issued and effective regardless of the timing of

any changes regarding clothes washer categories that DOE may make to

its standards rule.

[[Page 58674]]

C. The Canadian EnerGuide Program Does Not Distinguish Between ``Top-

Loading'' and ``Front Loading''

Over the past few years, the Commission has taken action to

harmonize the Rule's labeling requirements with those of the EnerGuide

Program in accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement

(``NAFTA'') goals of reducing or eliminating non-tariff barriers to

trade (e.g., labeling requirements). The Commission staff has worked

with staff at Natural Resources Canada (``NRCan'') since 1992 to

harmonize the two countries'' appliance labeling programs as much as

possible (e.g., the Commission changed the primary energy use

descriptor for most appliances from estimated annual operating cost to

kiloWatt-hours per year (the descriptor used in the EnerGuide Program),

and simplified the EnergyGuide by removing the cost grids, making it

more similar to the EnerGuide. 59 FR 34014 (July 1, 1994)).9

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ In addition, in 1996, the Commission amended the Rule to

permit Canada's EnerGuide, as well as Mexico's energy label, to be

placed ``directly adjoining'' the Rule's required ``EnergyGuide''

label. Previously the Rule prohibited the affixation of non-required

information ``on or directly adjoining'' the EnergyGuide. 61 FR

33651 (June 28, 1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Canadian EnerGuide Program does not divide the ``Standard'' and

``Compact'' clothes washer sub-categories further into top-loading and

front-loading (or horizontal-axis and vertical-axis)

subdivisions.10 Thus, eliminating the ``Top-loading'' and

``Front-loading'' subdivisions also would have the salutary effect of

promoting international harmonization and furthering the NAFTA goal of

making the standards-related measures of the treaty signatories

compatible, thereby facilitating trade among the parties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ According to NRCan staff, this is because the definition of

``clothes washer'' in the Canadian regulations encompasses both top-

loading and front-loading technologies, and the rulemaking staff saw

no reason for further differentiation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Request for Comment

A. General Information for Commenters

The Commission requests interested persons to submit written

comments on any issue of fact, law or policy that may bear upon the

proposed amendment. Although the Commission welcomes comments on any

aspect of the proposed amendment, the Commission is particularly

interested in comments on the questions listed below. All written

comments should state clearly the question or issue that the commenter

wishes to address.

The Commission requests that commenters provide representative

factual data in support of their comments. Individual firms'

experiences are relevant to the extent they typify industry experience

in general or the experience of similar-sized firms. Comments opposing

the proposed amendment should, if possible, suggest specific

alternatives. Proposals for alternatives to the proposed amendment

should include reasons and data that indicate why the alternatives

would better serve the requirements of the Appliance Labeling Rule.

Comments should be supported by a full discussion of all the relevant

facts and/or be based on firsthand knowledge, personal experience, or

general understanding of the particular issues addressed.

CEE's March 5, 1998 petition, its research results, the letters

from the Oregon Energy Office, and written comments submitted will be

available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, where applicable, and Commission

regulations on normal business days from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the

Federal Trade Commission, 6th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Room 130,

Washington, DC 20580.

B. Questions for Comment

The Commission is particularly interested in comments addressing

the following questions and issues:

1. What is the effect of the current ``Top-Loading'' and ``Front-

Loading'' subdivisions of the ``Standard'' and ``Compact''

subcategories for clothes washers on consumers'' ability to choose the

most energy efficient model that will fill their clothes washing needs?

2. To what extent do consumers looking for a new clothes washer

shop exclusively for either a top-loading or a front-loading model? To

what extent do they shop without looking specifically for either type

of washer?

3. What would be the economic impact on manufacturers of the

proposed amendment?

4. What would be the benefits of the proposed amendment? Who would

receive those benefits? What would be the costs of the proposed

amendment? Who would incur those costs?

5. What would be the benefits and economic impact of the proposed

amendment on small businesses?

6. If the Commission eliminates the current ``Top-Loading'' and

``Front-Loading'' subdivisions from Appendix F, should the only

remaining descriptors of clothes washer capacity be ``Standard'' and

``Compact,'' or should there be additional descriptors? For example,

should the Commission require that the internal tub volume of clothes

washers, in cubic feet or in gallons (or both), also be required on

labels for clothes washers?

7. If DOE were to amend its clothes washer standards rule as

discussed in II.B., above, and the Commission were to adopt the

amendment proposed today, should the Commission postpone the effective

date to coincide with DOE's changes, or should it issue and make

effective the proposed amendment regardless of the timing of any

changes in clothes washer categories that DOE may make to its standards

rule?

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This notice does not contain a regulatory analysis under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 603-604, because the

Commission believes that the proposed amendment, if adopted, would not

have ``a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small

entities,'' 5 U.S.C. 605. The proposed amendment would not impose any

new requirements on manufacturers of clothes washers. Instead, it would

require less information than is currently required on labels that

clothes washer manufacturers already must affix to their products. The

Commission, therefore, believes that the impact of the proposed

amendment on all entities within the affected industry, if any, would

be de minimis.

In light of the above, the Commission certifies, pursuant to

section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that the proposed amendment would

not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a substantial number

of small entities. To ensure that no substantial economic impact is

being overlooked, however, the Commission solicits comments concerning

the effects of the proposed amendment, including any benefits and

burdens on manufacturers or consumers and the extent of those benefits

and burdens, beyond those imposed or conferred by the current Rule,

that the proposed amendment would have on manufacturers, retailers, or

other sellers. The Commission is particularly interested in comments

regarding the effects of the proposed amendment on small businesses.

After reviewing any comments received, the Commission will determine

whether it is necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility

analysis if it determines to promulgate the amendment.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

requires

[[Page 58675]]

government agencies, before promulgating rules or other regulations

that require ``collections of information'' (i.e., recordkeeping,

reporting, or third-party disclosure requirements), to obtain approval

from the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB''), 44 U.S.C. 3502. The

Commission currently has OMB clearance for the Rule's information

collection requirements (OMB No. 3084-0069). The proposed amendment

would not impose any new information collection requirements. To ensure

that no additional burden has been overlooked, however, the Commission

seeks public comment on what, if any, additional information collection

burden the proposed amendment may impose.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their

Advisors

Pursuant to Rule 1.18(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16

CFR 1.18(c) (1997), communications with respect to the merits of this

proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's

advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the

following treatment. Written communications, including written

communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to

the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications,

not including oral communications from members of Congress, are

permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim

or summarized, at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner's

advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and are promptly

placed on the public record, together with any written communications

and summaries of any oral communications relating to such oral

communications. Oral communications from members of Congress shall be

transcribed or summarized, at the discretion of the Commissioner or

Commissioner's advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and

promptly placed on the public record, together with any written

communications and summaries of any oral communications relating to

such oral communications.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

VII. Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend

title 16, chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 305--RULE CONCERNING DISCLOSURES REGARDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

AND WATER USE OF CERTAIN HOME APPLIANCE AND OTHER PRODUCTS REQUIRED

UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT (``APPLIANCE LABELING

RULE'')

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

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

2. Appendix F to part 305--Clothes Washers is revised to read as

follows:

Appendix F To Part 305--Clothes Washers

Range Information

``Compact'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub

capacity of less than 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water.

``Standard'' includes all household clothes washers with a tub

capacity of 1.6 cu. ft. or 13 gallons of water or more.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Range of Estimated

Annual Energy

Capacity Consumption (kWh/yr.)

-------------------------

Low High

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compact....................................... 592 607

Standard...................................... 241 1231

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98-29287 Filed 10-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P