Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

46796

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules
models and how such models are applied in the field, an alternate test procedure could have erroneously been applied that did not meet the requirements in EPCA. DOE needed time to understand more about the product and the proposed alternate test procedure, and after several exchanges, came to understand that the GEA
proposed alternate test procedure did not include all the energy consumption to represent an average use cycle and thus, the test procedure proposed by GEA was not representative. See 42
U.S.C. 6293. If the alternate test procedure proposed by GEA was automatically granted, the basic models subject to the interim waiver would be using a test procedure that underestimates the energy consumption of the product.
In another example on October 25, 2016, AHT filed a petition for waiver and interim waiver from the DOE test procedure for commercial refrigeration equipment set forth in 10 CFR part 431, subpart C, appendix B. EERE2017
BTWAV00270009, AHT, No. 0001 at pp. 110 3 AHT petitioned for waiver for six model lines that are capable of multi-mode operation i.e., as ice cream freezer and commercial refrigerator. In the petition, AHT stated that the DOE
test procedure is not clear regarding how to test multi-mode equipment. 82
FR 15345, 15349. To address multimode operation, AHT requested that their equipment be tested and rated only as ice cream freezers with integrated average temperature of 15 F +/
2.0 F and use of total display area TDA to determine associated energy conservation standards. 82 FR 15345, 1534915350.
In evaluating and adopting energy conservation standards, DOE generally divides covered equipment into classes by the type of energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related feature that justifies a different standard for equipment having such a feature. 42
U.S.C. 6295q and 42 U.S.C. 6316e1
Commercial refrigeration equipment is divided into various equipment classes categorized by specific physical and design characteristics, such as operating temperatures. These equipment classes have characteristics that impact efficiency and have different corresponding energy conservation standards for refrigerators, freezers, and ice-cream freezers under the current DOE regulations. AHTs proposed alternate test procedure would have rated its multi-mode basic models in a manner that was unrepresentative because it would have only accounted for ice-cream freezer mode operation and would not have accounted for
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:48 Aug 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

freezer mode operation. As DOE
explained in the notice of a petition for waiver, partial grant of an interim waiver, and request for public comment, DOE did not agree with AHTs assertion that the multi-mode regulations for commercial refrigeration equipment were unclear. 82 FR 15345, 15347. DOE
reiterated that in the most recent commercial refrigeration equipment test procedure final rule, self-contained equipment or remote condensing equipment with thermostats capable of operating at temperatures that span multiple equipment categories must be certified and comply with DOEs regulations for each applicable equipment category. Id.
After evaluating AHTs petition and alternate test procedure, DOE partially granted AHTs interim waiver. 82 FR
15345. DOE required 102 business days for this review. If DOE did not have sufficient time to evaluate this test procedure waiver and AHT moved forward with its request without modification, AHT would not have been evaluating the multi-mode operation in a manner representative of field use in freezer mode and it may have resulted in equipment being distributed in commerce that may have otherwise been non-compliant with the energy conservation standards.
DOE has tentatively determined that the December 2020 Final Rule did not place sufficient weight on the potential for alternate test procedures granted without sufficient DOE review to allow manufacturers to place products in the market that do not meet applicable energy conservation standards. To the extent that test procedure results are unrepresentative and do not provide comparative data, energy savings may not be realized, and consumers may not be able to make informed choices. As discussed previously, DOE has an obligation under EPCA to ensure that all test procedures authorized by the Department yield measurements of energy consumption that are representative of actual product or equipment performance. 42 U.S.C.
6293 As commenters noted in the December 2020 Final Rule, a DOE test procedure that inaccurately measures energy use of a covered product or equipment could inadvertently allow for the backsliding of energy conservation measures in violation of 42 U.S.C.
9265o. As seen with the GEA and AHT
petitions, DOE cannot appropriately determine whether an alternate test procedure will accurately measure energy use if there is insufficient time to understand a product and validate an alternate test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to remove the
PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

provision that interim waivers will be automatically granted if DOE fails to notify the petitioner of the disposition of the petition within 45 business days of receipt. DOE also proposes to remove the language at 10 CFR 430.27e1iii and 10 CFR 431.401e1iii specifying when a petition is considered received by DOE. These provisions were added for purposes of determining the start of the 45 business day window and would serve no purpose if interim waivers are not automatically granted within a specified time period.
DOE requests comments, information, and data on its proposal to remove the provision that interim waivers will be automatically granted if DOE fails to respond to the request within 45
business days of receipt of the petition.
In addition, after further reflection of the approach adopted in the December 2020 Final Rule and considering DOEs available resources, DOE is reconsidering whether the 45 business day review timeframe provides sufficient time for DOE to properly evaluate a proposed alternate test procedure. As discussed in the December 2020 Final Rule, DOEs analysis of the processing time of 33
interim waivers between 2016 and 2018
showed long review periods between the receipt of the waiver application and issuance of an interim waiver. 85 FR
79802, 7981279813. Of those 33
interim waiver requests, only four were granted within 45 business days of receipt. Id. On average, interim waiver requests received in 2016 took 162 days to resolve, those received in 2017 took 202 days, and those received in 2018
took 208 days. Id. DOE noted in the December 2020 Final Rule that this data illustrated that there was a need for issuance of a timely interim waiver. 85
FR 79802, 79813.
After further consideration, DOE
acknowledges that there is a need for improvement in its process to more timely address interim waivers but DOE
believes the 45 business day timeframe implemented by the December 2020
Final Rule is too brief and rigid. An inflexible rule can fail to take relevant circumstances into account. As seen with the GEA and AHT petitions, a longer time frame is often needed for DOE to understand the product, the proposed alternate test procedure, and whether that alternate test procedure will accurately reflect the products energy consumption during an average use cycle. As noted in DOEs 2014
rulemaking on the petitions for waiver and interim waiver regulations, many delays in processing waiver applications arise from iterative efforts by DOE to obtain sufficient information upon
E:FRFM20AUP1.SGM

20AUP1