Quiero saber acerca de...

9276

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
conditioner at 305.3.13 Applying the same electricity cost rate $0.13 kWh/hr currently used for room air conditioners, the NPRM also contained cost ranges specifically for portable air conditioners in three size categories and derived from DOE energy use data.14
Consistent with findings made in the 2016 and 2017 notices, the NPRM did not propose combining the ranges for portable and room air conditioners because it is not clear whether consumers routinely compare the two product categories when shopping.15
However, consumers who want to compare them would be able to do so easily using the labels energy cost disclosure. In addition, consistent with provisions applicable to room air conditioners, the proposed amendments contained reporting requirements identical to those created by DOE for these products.
Finally, in the NPRM, the Commission proposed establishing an effective date for the label coinciding with the compliance date for DOE
standards. Citing burdens associated with testing and labeling, industry comments earlier in this proceeding urged the Commission to synchronize any new labeling requirements with the DOE standards compliance date.16
B. Efficiency Descriptors for Central Air Conditioners In the NPRM, the Commission also sought comments on updates to the efficiency descriptors on central air conditioner labels. In 2017, as part of an efficiency standards proceeding, DOE
announced changes to the rating methods and associated efficiency descriptors for central air conditioners e.g., from Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio SEER to Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 2 SEER2.17 The DOE
changes become effective on January 1, 2023. To ensure consistency with the DOE standards, the NPRM proposed changing all applicable references in Part 305, effective on January 1, 2023.
Given the relatively small differences in the ratings produced by the old and the 13 To effect new labeling requirements, the proposed amendments inserted the term portable air conditioner next to room air conditioner into appropriate paragraphs of the Rule as detailed in the amendatory language included in this Notice.
14 See DOE TSD, Chapter 3 at 2425 and Ch. 5
at 520. Using estimates for the most energy consumptive models based on the DOE standards, the ranges by size category expressed in yearly energy consumption are: 1 Less than 6,000 Btu/
hr: 375753 kWh/yr, 2 6,000 to 7,999 Btu/hr:
663916 kWh/yr, and 3 8,000 Btu/yr or greater:
8071034 kWh/yr.
15 81 FR at 62682; and 82 FR at 2923129232.
16 82 FR 29231.
17 82 FR 1786 Jan. 6, 2017; and 82 FR 24211
May 26, 2017.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Feb 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

new rating methods, the Commission did not propose any additional label changes. The Commission noted plans to update ranges in Appendix H and I, as well as applicable numbers on the sample labels in Appendix L, when new data becomes available.
C. Questions on Label Layout and Format Requirements The Commission also requested comment on whether it should revise requirements in the Rule related to layout, format, and placement of EnergyGuide labels. Specifically, the NPRM asked whether some of these requirements e.g., 305.13b are too prescriptive. In addition, the NPRM
asked whether the Rule should contain a general label durability and disclosure format requirement in lieu of the existing, specific provisions for layout, type style, setting, and label attachment.
The NPRM also asked whether industry members interpret existing guidance in the Rule related to adhesive labels as a required standard. Finally, the NPRM
contained several questions about the Rules cost and benefits and the potential impact of more flexible requirements.
V. Comments on the NPRM
The Commission received seven comments in response to the NPRM.18
As detailed below, the commenters generally supported or did not oppose labels for portable air conditioners and the transition to the new DOE efficiency descriptors. However, they provided differing views on the need to revise existing label requirements. Finally, some commenters offered broad suggestions for replacing physical labels with electronic labels.
A. Portable Air Conditioner Labels All the commenters supported or did not oppose adding portable air conditioner labels to the Rule.19 As discussed below, they asserted the 18 The comments are available at www.regulations.gov. The comments consist of AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute AHRI 3309; Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers AHAM 3304; Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP including American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ACEEE, National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income clients NCLC, Natural Resources Defense Council NRDC, & Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA ASAP et al. 3306;
Goodman Manufacturing 3308; Jieun Rim 33
02; Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Sierra Club, Earthjustice Joint Commenters 3305; and the California Investor-Owned Utilities Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison CA IOUs 3307.
19 Joint Commenters, Jieun Rim, and ASAP et al.
supported the proposal. AHAM stated that it did not oppose the labeling.

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

labels energy cost information would help consumers choose among portable air conditioners and alert them to the relative cost of portable and room models. The commenters also supported providing comparability ranges separate from room air conditioners.
The comments emphasized the labels consumer benefits. For example, CFA
explained the labels will provide significant value to consumers making purchasing decisions. The Joint Commenters noted the energy costs disclosures will correctly indicate to consumers that portable units are typically less efficient than room air conditioners. AHAM, which represents portable air conditioner manufacturers, did not oppose the label but, as discussed further below, urged the Commission to eliminate physical labels for all products and transition to an electronic label structure.
The commenters supported or did not oppose separate comparability ranges for portable and room air conditioners. AHAM, which fully agreed with the proposed approach on ranges, explained consumers can adequately compare the two products, to the extent they even wish to do so for these two different products, easily using the labels energy cost disclosure. Referencing earlier comments, it argued combining the ranges would cause confusion because consumers of these products are different, and the two air conditioner categories do not have similar usage.
AHAM also argued consumers focus mostly on capacity and purchase price when buying air conditioner units and thus may not use comparative energy costs information between the two categories.
Commenters further recommended two additional items. First, two commenters noted the regulatory text in 305.10 should include a reference for DOE capacity and rounding determinations for portable air conditioners Appendix CC to 10 CFR
part 430, subpart B.20 Second, the CA
IOUs recommended statements on product packaging and literature about proper portable air conditioner operation, explaining the need for ducting to vent the heat produced by a unit to the outside.
Commenters, however, offered differing views on the timing for the new labels. AHAM strongly supported a compliance date coinciding with the DOE standards. It asserted that designing products to meet the new standards requires considerable effort, a fact reflected in EPCAs five-year lead20 See
E:FRFM12FER1.SGM

ASAP et al. and AHAM.

12FER1