Je veux savoir à propos de…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 164 / Friday, August 27, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

standards rulemakings for affected covered products/equipment.
II. Proposed Interpretive Rule Based on DOEs reconsideration of the January 2021 Final Interpretation, the Department is proposing to revise its interpretation of EPCAs features provision in the context of condensing and non-condensing technology used in furnaces, water heating equipment, and similarly-situated appliances.
Consistent with the interpretation presented in the May 2015 Furnaces NOPR, the September 2016 Furnaces SNOPR, and the May 2016 Commercial Water Heaters NOPR, DOE tentatively concludes that in the context of residential furnaces, commercial water heaters, and similarly-situated products or equipment, use of non-condensing technology and associated venting is not a performance-related feature for the purpose of the EPCA prohibitions at 42 U.S.C. 6295o4 and 42 U.S.C.
6313a6BiiiIIaa. DOE initially finds that non-condensing technology and the associated venting does not provide unique utility to consumers separate from an appliances function of providing heated air or water, as applicable.
Upon further consideration, DOE has tentatively concluded that utility is determined through the benefits and values the feature provides to the consumer while interacting with the product, not through analyzing or making comparisons to more complicated design features, or costs that anyone, including the consumer, manufacturer, installer, or utility companies, may bear. Stated differently, DOE has tentatively determined that differences in cost or complexity of installation between different methods of venting e.g a condensing furnace versus a non-condensing furnace do not make any method of venting a performance-related feature under 42
U.S.C. 6295o4, as would justify separating the products/equipment into different product/equipment classes under 42 U.S.C. 6295q1. Again, this approach is consistent with EPCAs requirement for a separate and extensive analysis of economic justification for the adoption of any new or amended energy conservation standard see 42 U.S.C.
6295o23; 42 U.S.C. 6313a6A
C; 42 U.S.C. 6316a.
Therefore, because DOE has come to see that the issues underlying its January 15, 2021 final interpretive rule are appropriately framed as matters of cost, this proposed interpretation would return those issues for resolution to their proper sphere as part of DOEs economic analysis in individual energy
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:25 Aug 26, 2021

Jkt 253001

conservation standards rulemakings.
DOE initially finds this interpretation to be the best reading of the relevant provisions of EPCA, which is consistent with the intent and purposes of the statute. In DOEs view, the proposed interpretation would align better with EPCAs goals of increasing the energy efficiency of covered products and equipment through the establishment and amendment of energy conservation standards and promoting conservation measures when feasible. 42 U.S.C. 6291
et seq., as amended The following paragraphs set forth DOEs rationale for its proposed revised interpretation in further detail. As background, DOE
must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products and covered equipment. In general, a new or amended standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6295o2A; 42 U.S.C. 6295o3B;
42 U.S.C. 6316a In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens after receiving comments on the proposed standard and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, seven factors see footnote 6. One of the seven factors for consideration is the lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard. 42 U.S.C. 6295o2BiIV;
42 U.S.C. 6313a6BiiIV; 42 U.S.C.
6316a As discussed, EPCA further directs that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds and publishes such finding that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type or class of performance characteristics including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretarys finding. 42
U.S.C. 6295o4; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6BiiiII; 42 U.S.C. 6316a Also, as discussed, when prescribing an energy conservation standard, DOE
must consider whether separate product/equipment classes are justified based on performance-related features and their associated utility. 42 U.S.C.
6295q1; 42 U.S.C. 6316a The features provision, the seven factors for economic justification, and the product class provisions are all required
PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48053

considerations in establishing new and amended energy conservation standards.
As mentioned previously, a feature is a trait, attribute, or function of a product. The usefulness and benefit provided to a consumer by a feature is the features utility, and consumer utility is used to evaluate whether a purported feature justifies a separate product class. DOE has historically viewed utility of a product or equipment as an aspect of the appliance that is accessible to the layperson consumer and is based upon user operation and interaction with that appliance. Examples of features, such as oven door windows and angle of access for clothes washers, are illustrative of this principle. Consumers use the oven door window in conjunction with the oven lamp to gauge the progress of food undergoing baking, without the need to open the oven door. Needing to open the oven door entails loss of heat, which would decrease the energy efficiency of the oven. The oven door window is a feature which consumers generally appreciate and with which they routinely interact when cooking. The windows elimination would result in the loss of a performance-related feature that provides valued utility for consumers. Another example would be the angle of access of a clothes washer.
Currently, consumers have two options when purchasing clothes washers:
Front-loading machines and top-loading machines. Some consumers, such as the elderly, may prefer a top-loading clothes washer, because it is easier to reach the laundry without excessive bending, which is in contrast to the angle of access of a front-loading washer. A
broader spectrum of consumers recognizes and appreciates the ability of a top-loading washer to readily accept additional clothing items, even after a wash cycle has begun. Other consumers, such as those with disabilities, may prefer a front-loading machine because that angle of access better suits their access needs. The two angles provided consumer utility in terms of ease of use to different consumer subgroups.
Consequently, consistent with the requirements of EPCA, DOE viewed angle of access as a performance-related feature for clothes washers that cannot be eliminated from the market through adoption of an energy conservation standard.
In contrast to the examples discussed in the preceding paragraph, DOE has historically viewed a consumers interaction with a furnace or water heater to be a simple one, whereby the user only interacts to place a call for heated air or water. After the consumer
E:FRFM27AUP1.SGM

27AUP1