Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

73952

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
In response to the August 2021
NOPIR, DOE received a number of general comments either supporting or opposing DOEs proposed change in interpretation. Along these lines, the State Attorneys General commented in support of DOEs proposed interpretation of the EPCAs features provision, stating they strongly support a robust national appliance and equipment efficiency program. State Attorneys General, No. 136 at p. 1
ASAP et al. stated that DOEs proposed interpretation would help protect consumers and allow the Department to carry out EPCAs goal of increasing the energy efficiency of covered products and equipment through energy conservation standards. ASAP et al., No. 143 at p. 2 NEEA, NBI, A.O. Smith, CEC, the CA IOUs, and NRDC et al. also commented in support of returning to DOEs long-standing interpretation of the features provision, under which the technology used to supply heated air or water does not constitute a performance-related feature. NEEA, No. 137 at p. 1; NBI, No. 128 at p. 1;
A.O. Smith, No. 133 at p. 1; CEC, No.
134 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 141 at p. 2;
NRDC et al., No. 144 at p. 1 Regal Beloit likewise supported DOE revisiting the interpretation of feature in the context of residential furnaces and commercial water heaters. Regal Beloit, No. 131 at p. 1.
In contrast, Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, U.S. Boiler,9 and AGA et al.
favored maintaining the interpretation adopted in the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule. Crown Boiler, No.
127 at p. 1; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130
at p. 1; U.S. Boiler, No. 129 at p. 1; AGA
et al., No. 135 at p. 2. AHRI requested DOE not to implement the proposed policy reversal, arguing that the condensing/non-condensing performance feature provides an important utility to consumers. AHRI, No. 139 at p. 1.
GEUAG objected to the proposed interpretation, asserting that DOE failed to engage in the reasoned decisionmaking in the August 2021 NOPIR
required by administrative law.
GEUAG, No. 132 at p. 4 GEUAG
commented that nothing in the technology or operation of these products has changed since DOE
published the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule, nor has anything changed in the extensive analyses, facts, and studies that supported that features determination. Id. at p. 5.
APGA et al. asserted that DOE did not provide sufficient time to adequately 9 Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S.
Boiler submitted substantively identical comments.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

comment and thoroughly analyze the proposed reversal of the interpretation issued in response to the Gas Industry Petition. APGA et al., No. 140 at p. 7
IER commented that the DOE failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the change, and instead merely asserted the exact opposite of its prior explanation in the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule. IER, No. 138 at p. 2 AHRI
expressed concern about the change in course on this ruling within such a short period of time, stating that sudden changes create significant costs and administrative burdens for manufacturers and hinder innovation and progress. AHRI, No. 139 at p. 4
In response to these comments and as further explained elsewhere in this document, DOE is issuing this final interpretation following a reexamination of the record developed in the rulemakings for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters, review of the comments received to the August 2021
NOPIR, and further analysis of DOEs authority under EPCA. The issues addressed by this re-evaluation and the information on which this final interpretation is based have been thoroughly aired, not only in this proceeding, but also in a number of prior rulemakings which themselves had ample opportunity for public comment, so the record before the agency is substantial. Moreover, as noted previously, DOE provided an extension of the opportunity for public comment on the August 2021 NOPIR at stakeholder request. Consequently, this final interpretive rule is the product of considerable public input.
DOE agrees with the commenters that little has changed in terms of the technology or operation of the products/
equipment at issue since promulgation of the January 2021 Final Interpretive Rule and DOE has not acted to implement that interpretation during the intervening period. However, the absence of subsequent developments on the manufacturing and regulatory fronts does not preclude DOE from reexamining the substantial existing record to assess the soundness of its prior features determination.
Furthermore, because stakeholder positions on the relevant issues have been well documented in the past, when coupled with the lack of any substantial changes during the intervening period, the Department does not agree with those stakeholders who argued that the comment period provided for in the August 2021 NOPIR 45 days in total was inadequate to analyze DOEs proposal or to prepare written comments. Commenters have also failed to demonstrate any specific harms
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

suffered as a result of reliance on DOEs interpretation between the January 2021
Final Interpretive Rule and the August 2021 NOPIR, and, particularly because that final interpretation was never implemented through amended energy conservation standards, the status quo never changed during this period of interpretation review.
As discussed in the following sections, based on this review and the extensive record that exists, DOE finds its historical interpretation i.e., the interpretation proposed in the August 2021 NOPIR to be the better reading of the relevant provisions of EPCA, which also better aligns 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. Furthermore, this interpretation avoids requiring separate product or equipment classes to preserve less efficient technologies, while maintaining consideration of installation costs as part of the extensive analysis of economic justification required by EPCA 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. The following paragraphs set forth DOEs rationale for its revised interpretation in further detail, as well as the responses to other specific comments received.
A. Features Provision and Utility As described previously in this document, DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended energy conservation 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. 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 EPCA further directs that the Secretary may not prescribe an amended
E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1