Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

70950

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
consumers of purchasing noncompliant products and decreased energy savings and requested that DOE expand on what data supports that the delayed energy savings from utilizing a test procedure waiver would be less than from potential noncompliant products on the market. BWC, No. 68 at p. 1
DOE has considered the suggestions by multiple commenters to maintain the automatic granting of interim waivers after 45 days for same-technology waiver petitions or waiver extension petitions. Contrary to assertions by commenters, DOE applies the same level of rigor and scrutiny during its review of same-technology waiver petitions and waiver extension petitions as it does for the initial interim waiver petitions. DOE reviews the details of each same-technology waiver petition to ensure that the alternate test procedure specified in the initial interim waiver would yield results that accurately reflect the products energy consumption during an average use cycle so as to provide materially accurate comparative data. Despite employing the same or similar technology as a previously granted waiver, each manufacturer that petitions for a same-technology waiver may have unique product designs that require a similar timeframe for evaluation by DOE
as the basic model subject to the original waiver, which as described, may require more than 45 business days. Similarly for waiver extension petitions, DOE
must be afforded sufficient opportunity to review a waiver extension request to confirm not only that the additional basic models employ the same technology as the basic model set forth in the original petition, but that the alternate test procedure specified for the original basic model would evaluate the performance of the additional basic models in a manner representative of the energy and/or water consumption characteristics of the additional basic models.
The comment from BWC refers to DOEs statement in the August 2021
NOPR that DOE had tentatively determined that the changes under the December 2020 Final Rule may not allow DOE sufficient time to review an alternate test procedure, leading to increased risks to consumers of purchasing noncompliant products and decreased energy savings. 86 FR 46793, 46795. By this, DOE meant that the current processin which an interim waiver will be automatically granted if DOE fails to respond to the request within 45 business days of receipt of the petitionincreases the risk with respect to the previous interim waiver process prior to the December 2020

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:20 Dec 13, 2021

Jkt 256001

Final Rule that a manufacturer could place a product into the market for which the results of the suggested test procedure are not representative and therefore not appropriate for determining compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard. This risks the product not being complaint with the applicable standard when tested according to a test procedure that is not representative of average energy use. Placing a noncompliant product into the market would result in increased energy use i.e., decreased energy savings by consumers.
DOE agrees with other commenters that any interim waiver granted should be the result of an affirmative determination by DOE. 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 A DOE test procedure that inaccurately measures energy use of a covered product or equipment could place noncompliant products in the market and/or inadvertently allow for the backsliding of energy conservation measures in violation of 42 U.S.C.
9265o.
DOE also considered the suggestion that DOE be allowed to request an additional 45 days for a total of 90
days for its review and response on new waiver petitions. Despite the longer suggested timeframe for review, this approach would maintain the possibility of an interim waiver being automatically granted after 90 days, presenting the same risks to consumers as the current process, as described above.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed, DOE is removing 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.
B. Timeframe for Review of Interim Waivers Separately from DOEs consideration of and determination not to automatically grant an interim waiver if DOE fails to respond to the request within 45 business days of receipt of the petition, DOE reconsidered whether a 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 review periods between the
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

receipt of the waiver application and issuance of an interim waiver significantly longer than 45 business days. 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 to issue decisions on interim waiver requests in a more timely manner. 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
has determined that the 45-business day timeframe implemented by the December 2020 Final Rule is often 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 timeframe 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. Many delays in processing waiver and interim waiver petitions arise from iterative efforts by DOE to obtain sufficient information upon which to base a decision to grant an interim waiver. Determining that an alternate test procedure complies with EPCA also requires careful analysis and sometimes requires testing by DOE. DOE
stated in the December 2020 Final Rule that a downside of this iterative process is the inability of interested stakeholders to participate in the development of an interim test procedure. 85 FR 79802, 79809. The amendments adopted in this final rule maintain transparency provided through posting of a complete petition within five days of its receipt and afford the development, as necessary, of the alternate test procedure on which stakeholders will have the opportunity to comment. Further, the regulations continue to require notification of a requested alternated test procedure to affected manufacturers and opportunity for comment. 10 CFR 430.24biv and 10 CFR 431.401biv. DOE has a statutory obligation under EPCA to ensure that alternative test methods authorized by the Department yield measurements of energy consumption that are representative of actual performance. Providing a longer, flexible timeframe that better reflects DOEs experience will allow DOE to
E:FRFM14DER1.SGM

14DER1