Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations in period for DOE standards. According to AHAM, the pre-development, development, and tooling phases of launching a new product take years to complete and require extensive company resources. In its view, instituting a label mandate prior to the DOE compliance date would require companies to divert resources from developing new, more efficient products to labeling. AHAM also explained that aligning the compliance dates with the DOE standards and EnergyGuide labels would allow manufacturers to engage in the extensive development and testing activities required to innovate and bring more efficient products to market, as well as to comply with regulatory requirements.
In contrast, the Joint Commenters, ASAP et al., and the California InvestorOwned Utilities CA IOUs disagreed.
The Joint Commenters argued consumers who currently lack the protection of a DOE minimum efficiency standard should have access to labels sooner to help identify and avoid inefficient models. Given the delays in the proceeding caused by the DOE
litigation, these commenters argued manufacturers have had ample time to make the investments they have claimed are necessary to deploy the labels. In addition, with the issuance of DOEs test procedure in 2016, manufacturers must, pursuant to EPCA 42 U.S.C. 6293c, disclose the DOE results in any energy representations they make. Thus, according to the Joint Commenters, manufacturers have had more than three years to gain familiarity with the test procedures and to understand how different basic models perform under test. The CA IOUs also noted manufacturers are currently reporting their models efficiency ratings to the California state database. ASAP et al.
agreed FTC should require labeling sooner, stating: labeling in advance of the compliance date of the DOE
standards will provide consumers with information to compare portable AC
units as well as an indication that portable ACs are less efficient than room ACs.
B. Energy Efficiency Descriptor Transition AHRI, Goodman, and the CAIOUs generally supported the proposal to update the efficiency descriptors on the label. No commenter opposed the proposal. However, AHRI and Goodman urged the Commission to issue these updates as part of a broader overhaul to the Rule, which, as discussed in section V.C., would involve a transition from physical labels on individual units to
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:41 Feb 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

online labels accessed through websites or QR codes.
These commenters also discussed the importance of updating the efficiency descriptors. In preparation for the DOE
change, AHRIs members are designing, testing, certifying, and introducing new equipment. They are also educating industry members and consumers by modifying AHRIs product directory and certification program. AHRI expects manufacturers to release products with updated efficiency descriptors prior to the 2023 compliance deadline. DOE has issued guidance allowing early compliance with the test procedures, as long as the represented efficiencies comply with the 2023 minimum requirements. Given this timing, AHRI
urged the Commission to complete label updates by summer 2021, so manufacturers may release compliant products as early as January 2022. In contrast, Goodman urged the Commission to issue the updates earlier, by December 2020, to give manufacturers even more time.
To minimize market confusion from such early compliance, AHRI is developing a communications campaign to inform distributors, contractors, regulators, and building inspectors about the transition. AHRI did not offer any specific proposals for addressing the transition on the physical label itself. It also opposed any FTC mandate for two separate labels requiring disclosures of the old and new metrics.
Instead, it recommended a transition to an electronic label beginning in 2023
as discussed further below. Prior to that date, under AHRIs proposal, manufacturers choosing to display the new efficiency descriptor earlier would use the physical EnergyGuide label along with a smaller label containing regional installation information, as well as a QR or equivalent link to an updated FTC electronic label.
Finally, on a separate issue involving central air conditioners, Goodman suggested the Commission modify range information for split-systems to revert to a format that appeared on labels prior to 2016. In its view, the current label, which limits the efficiency ratings to a single value, leads to consumer confusion because the actual efficiency rating for a system depends on the combination of the outdoor condenser and indoor unit.
C. Label Burdens Commenters offered a variety of views regarding the Rules approach to labeling. First, the Joint Commenters, the CA IOUs, and Goodman offered differing views on whether the Rules labeling requirements are
PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

9277

unnecessarily prescriptive. Second, as discussed in section D, both AHAM and AHRI recommended the Commission completely revise the Rule to transition to online or virtual energy labels.
The Joint Commenters and the CA
IOUs rejected the notion that the Rules requirements for label layout, type style and setting, and label adhesion are too prescriptive. In the CA IOUs view, increased flexibility in the labeling requirements could result in poor or inconsistent label quality that could inhibit consumers from making informed decisions regarding product performance. Further, they asserted that uniform presentation facilitates effective information delivery and avoids unnecessary confusion. The CA IOUs further suggested the labels would better serve consumers if they appeared on both packages and the products themselves. Similarly, the Joint Commenters described the label specifications as vital to the success of this program and contended the questions in the NPRM ignore the unique context and history of the EnergyGuide label program. In their view, because the EnergyGuide label has more information e.g., operating costs, efficiency ratings, comparative range bars, key product features, and explanatory statements than many other required disclosures in other programs e.g., labels for textiles and leather goods, the energy labels require a format highly standardized to ease comparisons. In addition, they argued allowing variability in layout and type style would hinder the labels effectiveness in assisting consumers with their purchasing decisions.
Finally, the Joint Commenters asserted the NPRMs questions regarding label flexibility exhibits amnesia as to the widespread noncompliance that the inadequate specificity in the FTCs prior regulations had fostered. The commenters cited past store visits demonstrating the use of adhesives varied widely and that certain approaches were associated with higher rates of missing or detached labels. The Joint Commenters noted that, in response to these findings, FTC added specificity to its regulations governing adhesives. In their view, reducing this specificity would only encourage a return to labelling practices that deprive consumers of access to the important information that EnergyGuide labels provide.
In contrast, Goodman, a heating and cooling equipment manufacturer, offered several detailed suggestions to eliminate specific labeling requirements in 305.20. It argued that these changes
E:FRFM12FER1.SGM

12FER1