[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 133 (Thursday, July 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33011-33022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14553]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 133 / Thursday, July 11, 2019 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 33011]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 430 and 431


Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces and Commercial Water 
Heaters

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. 
Department of Energy.

ACTION: Granting in part and denying in part a petition for rulemaking; 
notice of proposed interpretive rule; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document responds to the petition for rulemaking 
submitted on October 18, 2018 (Gas Industry Petition), by a number of 
parties asking the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue an interpretive 
rule and to withdraw related, previously published proposals. The Gas 
Industry Petition was published in the Federal Register on November 1, 
2018, for public review and input. After carefully considering the 
public comments on the petition, DOE has decided to grant the request 
for an interpretive rule. DOE has not made, and does not presently 
propose, any changes or revisions to current policies, legal 
requirements, or rulemakings with respect to condensing and non-
condensing products/equipment. Decisions about whether and how this 
interpretation of the term ``feature'' in the context of condensing/
non-condensing products/equipment will apply to existing rulemakings 
will be the subject of subsequent actions. Thus, DOE is denying the Gas 
Industry Petitioners' request to withdraw its earlier proposed rules 
for residential furnaces and commercial water heaters.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested on or before 
September 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments, 
identified by ``Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces 
and Commercial Water Heaters,'' by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email: [email protected]. Include 
Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-STD-0018 in the subject line of the message. 
Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 
ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form 
of encryption.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, 
please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information, see 
section VI of this document (Public Participation).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, or 
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-STD-0018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sofie Miller, Senior Advisor, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 
586-5000. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Eris Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: 
(202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary Description
    A. Relevant Statutory Provisions
    B. DOE's Historical Interpretation
    C. The Gas Industry Petition
III. Response to Comments
    A. Legal Authority
    1. Legal Authority To Set Separate Product/Equipment Classes 
Based Upon Condensing and Non-Condensing Technologies
    2. Legal Authority To Set a ``Small'' Furnaces Product Class for 
Mobile Home Furnaces
    B. Fuel Switching
    C. Analytical Issues
    D. Market Trends
    E. Consumer Impacts
    F. Other Issues
IV. DOE's Proposed Revised Interpretation
V. Conclusion
VI. Public Participation
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Background

    The Department sought public comments on the petition for 
rulemaking submitted on October 18, 2018, by the American Public Gas 
Association (APGA), Spire, Inc., the Natural Gas Supply Association 
(NGSA), the American Gas Association (AGA), and the National Propane 
Gas Association (NPGA), collectively referred to as the ``Gas Industry 
Petitioners,'' asking DOE to: (1) Issue an interpretive rule stating 
that DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for residential 
furnaces and commercial water heaters would result in the 
unavailability of ``performance characteristics'' within the meaning of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 \1\ (EPCA; 42 U.S.C. 
6291 et seq.), as amended (i.e., by setting standards which can only be 
met by condensing combustion technology products/equipment and thereby 
precluding the distribution in commerce of non-condensing combustion 
technology products/equipment) and (2) withdraw the proposed energy 
conservation standards for residential furnaces \2\ and commercial 
water heaters \3\ based upon

[[Page 33012]]

such findings. DOE published the petition in the Federal Register on 
November 1, 2018 (83 FR 54883), which had a comment period scheduled to 
close on January 30, 2019. DOE received two requests from interested 
parties seeking an extension of the comment period in order to develop 
additional data relevant to the petition. DOE granted those requests 
through publication in the Federal Register of a document extending the 
comment period on the notice of petition for rulemaking until March 1, 
2019. 84 FR 449 (Jan. 29, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
    \2\ Standards for non-weatherized residential furnaces were 
published in a notice of proposed rulemaking at 80 FR 13120 (March 
12, 2015) (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0032) and in a 
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking at 81 FR 65720 (Sept. 23, 
2016) (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0230).
    \3\ Standards for commercial water heating equipment were 
published in a notice of proposed rulemaking at 81 FR 34440 (May 31, 
2016) (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-STD-0042).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 90-day public comment period, including the 30-day extension to 
submit comments, invited public input in order to better understand 
stakeholder perspectives and increase transparency around a complex 
issue involving DOE's legal authority. DOE received comments from a 
variety of stakeholders, including representatives from gas industry 
associations, the manufactured housing industry, efficiency advocates, 
consumer advocates, State organizations and Attorneys General, and 
individuals (mostly form letter comments). In general, the gas industry 
associations and the manufactured housing industry supported the 
petition, and the advocates and State officials opposed it. 
Specifically, DOE received comment on the notice of petition from:
     Air-Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration Institute 
(AHRI);
     A.O. Smith Corporation (A.O. Smith);
     Appliance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP)/American 
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)/Alliance to Save Energy 
(ASE)/Consumer Federation of America (CFA)/National Consumer Law Center 
(NCLC) (ASAP et al. Joint Comment);
     California Energy Commission (CEC);
     Center for Efficient Living (CEL);
     EarthJustice/National Resources Defense Council 
(EarthJustice/NRCD Joint Comment);
     Emissol LLC;
     Indiana Manufactured Housing Association/Recreation 
Vehicle Indiana Council (IMHA/RVIC Joint Comment);
     Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA);
     Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI);
     Manufactured & Modular Home Association of Minnesota 
(MMHAM);
     Mississippi Manufactured Housing Association (MMHA);
     Mitsubishi Electric US (Mitsubishi);
     Mortex Products, Inc. (Mortex);
     National Consumer Law Center/Consumer Federation of 
America (NCLC/CFA Joint Comment);
     National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA);
     National Multifamily Housing Council/National Apartment 
Association/National Leased Housing Association (NMHC/NAA/NLHA Joint 
Comment);
     Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC);
     New Mexico Manufactured Housing Association (NMMHA);
     Nortek Global HVAC (Nortek);
     Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP);
     Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA);
     Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance/Northeast Energy 
Efficiency Partnership/Pacific Gas and Electric/National Grid (NEEA/
NEEP/PG&E/National Grid Joint Comment);
     Oliver Technologies, Inc.;
     Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)/San Diego Gas and 
Electric (SDG&E)/Southern California Edison (SCE) (CA IOUs Joint 
Comment);
     Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association (PHCC);
     Rheem Manufacturing Company (Rheem);
     Southern Company;
     Spire Inc./American Public Gas Association (APGA)/American 
Gas Association (AGA)/National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)/Natural 
Gas Supply Association (NGSA) (Gas Industry Petitioners Joint Comment);
     State Attorneys General (of NY, DC, IL, ME, MA, MN, NJ, 
OR, VT, and WA) and Corporation Counsel of New York City (Multi-State 
AGs Joint Comment);
     Suburban Propane;
     Triple-T;
     VEIC;
     Weil-McLain;
     Wisconsin Housing Alliance (WHA), and
     22 individuals.
    The comments were carefully and fully considered by DOE. DOE is 
issuing this notice of proposed interpretive rule to provide the public 
additional information about DOE's interpretation of EPCA's 
``features'' provision \4\ in the context of condensing vs. non-
condensing furnaces and water heaters, as informed by public comments. 
The following sections of this document set forth the relevant legal 
authority, describe the Department's historical interpretation of 
EPCA's ``features'' provision as applied to condensing vs. non-
condensing products/equipment, provide summary responses to significant 
and recurring comments received through the public comment process, and 
propose an interpretation of the relevant statutory provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); 6316(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed interpretive rule does not change or revise any 
current policies or legal requirements with respect to residential 
furnaces and commercial water heaters. Decisions about whether and how 
this interpretation will apply to existing products/equipment utilizing 
condensing/non-condensing technology will be the subject of subsequent 
actions.

II. Summary Description

A. Relevant Statutory Provisions

    In this document, DOE explains its historical interpretation 
regarding the evaluation of what constitutes a product ``feature'' 
which cannot be eliminated under EPCA, specifically in the context of 
residential furnaces and commercial water heaters. For covered consumer 
products, the key statutory provision at issue can be found at 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4), which provides that the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard under this section 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 Secretary's finding.
    Where the Secretary finds such ``performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes'' 
(collectively referred to hereafter as ``features'') to exist, the 
statute provides a potential remedy at 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1), which 
provides that a rule prescribing an energy conservation standard for a 
type (or class) of covered products shall specify a level of energy use 
or efficiency higher or lower than that which applies (or would apply) 
for such type (or class) for any group of covered products which have 
the same function or intended use, if the Secretary determines that 
covered products within such group--(A) consume a different kind of 
energy from that consumed by other covered products within such group 
(or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature 
which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such 
feature justifies a higher or lower standard from that which applies 
(or will apply) to other products within such type (or class). In 
making a determination under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) concerning whether a

[[Page 33013]]

performance-related feature justifies the establishment of a higher or 
lower standard, the Secretary shall consider such factors as the 
utility to the consumer of such a feature, and such other factors as 
the Secretary deems appropriate.
    These provisions also apply to covered non-ASHRAE commercial and 
industrial equipment through the provision at 42 U.S.C. 6316(a). (Under 
the statute, ``ASHRAE equipment'' refers to small commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment, large commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment, very large commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, 
packaged terminal heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, or unfired hot 
water storage tanks, which are addressed by the ASHRAE in Standard 
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 
Buildings.)
    ASHRAE equipment has its own separate statutory scheme under EPCA, 
with the default situation being that DOE must adopt the level set 
forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless the Department has clear and 
convincing evidence to adopt a more-stringent standard (see 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)). Under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa), there is a 
similar ``features'' provision which provides that the Secretary may 
not prescribe an amended standard under the subparagraph if the 
Secretary finds (and publishes the finding) that interested persons 
have established by a preponderance of the evidence that a standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
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 finding of the Secretary. However, it is 
noted that this provision contains the specific limitation that it 
applies to an amended standard prescribed under this subparagraph 
(i.e., when DOE is acting under its authority to set a more-stringent 
standard). There is no companion ``features'' provision under 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A), which is the provision that would apply when DOE is 
adopting the levels set by ASHRAE. Congress was clearly aware of the 
features issue, and it chose to act in the context of DOE standard 
setting, but not ASHRAE standard setting. There is likewise no 
companion provision to 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) for ASHRAE equipment.

B. DOE's Historical Interpretation

    With this statutory background in mind, in the March 12, 2015, 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for energy conservation standards 
for residential furnaces, DOE set forth in detail its rationale for why 
it did not considering the venting of non-condensing furnaces to 
constitute a product ``feature'' under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). 80 FR 
13120, 13137-13138.
    As discussed previously, when evaluating and establishing energy 
conservation standards, the statute requires DOE to divide covered 
products into product classes by the type of energy used, by capacity, 
or by other performance-related features that justify a different 
standard. In making a determination whether a performance-related 
feature justifies a different standard, DOE must consider factors such 
as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE 
determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Historically, DOE has 
viewed utility as an aspect of the product that is accessible to the 
layperson and is based on user operation, rather than performing a 
theoretical function. This interpretation has been implemented 
consistently in DOE's previous rulemakings by determining utility 
through the value the item brings to the consumer, rather than through 
analyzing more complicated design features, or costs that anyone, 
including the consumer, manufacturer, installer, or utility companies 
may bear. DOE reasoned that this approach is consistent with EPCA 
requiring a separate and extensive analysis of economic justification 
for the adoption of any new or amended energy conservation standard 
(see 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)-(B) and (3)).
    Under EPCA, DOE has typically addressed consumer utility by 
establishing separate product classes or otherwise taken action when a 
consumer may value a product feature based on the consumer's everyday 
needs. For instance, DOE has determined that it would be impermissible 
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) to include elimination of oven door windows 
as a technology option to improve the energy efficiency of cooking 
products.\5\ DOE reached this conclusion based upon how consumers 
typically use the product: Peering through the oven window to judge if 
an item is finished cooking, as opposed to checking the timer and/or 
indicator light or simply opening the oven door to see if the item is 
finished cooking. DOE has also determined that consumers may value 
other qualities such as ability to self-clean,\6\ size,\7\ and 
configuration.\8\ This determination, however, can change depending on 
the technology and the consumer, and it is conceivable that certain 
products may disappear from the market entirely due to shifting 
consumer demand. DOE stated that it has determined such value on a 
case-by-case basis through its own research, as well as public comments 
received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 63 FR 48038, 48041 (Sept. 8, 1998).
    \6\ 73 FR 62034, 62048 (Oct. 17, 2008) (separating standard 
ovens and self-cleaning ovens into different product classes).
    \7\ 77 FR 32307, 32319 (May 31, 2012) (creating a separate 
product class for compact front-loading residential clothes 
washers).
    \8\ 75 FR 59469, 59487 (Sept. 27, 2010) (creating a separate 
product class for refrigerators with bottom-mounted freezers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE offered a cautionary note that disparate products may have very 
different consumer utilities, thereby making direct comparisons 
difficult and potentially misleading. For instance, in a 2011 
rulemaking, DOE created separate product classes for vented and 
ventless residential clothes dryers based on DOE's recognition of the 
``unique utility'' that ventless clothes dryers offer to consumers. 76 
FR 22454, 22485 (April 21, 2011). This utility could be characterized 
as the ability to have a clothes dryer in a living area where vents are 
impossible to install (i.e., an apartment in a high-rise building). As 
explained in that April 2011 direct final rule technical support 
document, ventless dryers can be installed in locations where venting 
dryers would be precluded due to venting restrictions.
    But in another rulemaking, DOE found that water heaters that 
utilize heat pump technology did not need to be put in a separate 
product class from conventional types of hot water heaters that utilize 
electric resistance technology, even though water heaters utilizing 
heat pumps require the additional installation of a condensate drain 
that a hot water heater utilizing electric resistance technology does 
not require. 74 FR 65852, 65871 (Dec. 11, 2009). DOE found that 
regardless of these installation factors, the heat pump water heater 
and the conventional water heater still had the same utility to the 
consumer: Providing hot water. Id. In both cases, DOE made its finding 
based on consumer type and utility type, rather than product design 
criteria that impact product efficiency. These distinctions in both the 
consumer type and the utility type are important because, taken to the 
extreme, each design differential could be designated a different 
``product class'' and,

[[Page 33014]]

therefore, require different energy conservation standards.
    DOE expressed concern that tying the concept of ``feature'' to a 
specific technology would effectively lock-in the currently existing 
technology as the ceiling for product efficiency and eliminate DOE's 
ability to address technological advances that could yield significant 
consumer benefits in the form of lower energy costs while providing the 
same functionality for the consumer. DOE stated that it was very 
concerned that determining features solely on product technology could 
undermine the Department's Appliance Standards Program. DOE reasoned 
that if it is required to maintain separate product classes to preserve 
less-efficient technologies, future advancements in the energy 
efficiency of covered products would become largely voluntary, an 
outcome which seems inimical to Congress's purposes and goals in 
enacting EPCA.
    Turning to the product at issue in that rulemaking, DOE noted that 
residential furnaces are currently divided into several product 
classes. For example, furnaces are separated into product classes based 
on their fuel source (gas, oil, or electricity), which is required by 
statute. For that rulemaking, DOE analyzed only two product classes for 
residential furnaces: (1) Non-weatherized gas-fired furnaces (NWGFs) 
and (2) mobile home gas-fired furnaces (MHGFs). DOE did not 
additionally separate NWGFs and MHGFs into condensing and noncondensing 
product classes.
    In that rulemaking, DOE tentatively concluded that the methods by 
which a furnace is vented did not provide any separate performance-
related impacts, and, therefore, DOE had no statutory basis for 
defining a separate class based on venting and drainage 
characteristics. DOE reasoned that NWGF and MHGF venting methods did 
not provide unique utility to consumers beyond the basic function of 
providing heat, which all furnaces perform. The possibility that 
installing a non-condensing furnace may be less costly than a 
condensing furnace due to the difference in venting methods did not 
justify separating the two types of NWGFs into different product 
classes. Unlike the consumers of ventless dryers, which DOE had 
determined to be a performance-related feature based on the 
impossibility of venting in certain circumstances (e.g., high-rise 
apartments), DOE reasoned that consumers of condensing NWGFs are 
homeowners that may either use their existing venting or have a 
feasible alternative to obtain heat. In other words, homeowners would 
still be able to obtain heat regardless of the venting. In contrast, 
DOE reasoned that a resident of a high-rise apartment or condominium 
building that is not architecturally designed to accommodate vented 
clothes dryers would have no option in terms of installing and enjoying 
the utility of a dryer in their home unless he or she used a ventless 
dryer.
    As explained above, DOE's conclusion in the March 12, 2015 NOPR was 
that the utility of a furnace involves providing heat to a consumer. 
DOE reasoned that such utility is provided by any type of furnace, but 
to the extent that a consumer has a preference for a particular fuel 
type (e.g., gas), improvements in venting technology may eventually 
allow a consumer to obtain the efficiency of a condensing furnace using 
the existing venting in a residence by sharing venting space with water 
heaters. DOE postulated that this update in technology significantly 
would reduce the cost burden associated with installing condensing 
furnaces and reduce potential instances of ``orphaned'' water heaters, 
where the furnace and water heater can no longer share the same venting 
(due to one unit being condensing and the other noncondensing). In 
other words, when mature, this technology could allow consumers to 
switch from a non-condensing furnace to a condensing furnace in a 
greater variety of applications, such as urban row houses. For more 
information, interested parties were asked to consult appendix 8L of 
the NOPR TSD.

C. The Gas Industry Petition

    As noted above, on October 18, 2018, DOE received a petition from 
the Gas Industry Petitioners asking DOE to: (1) Issue an interpretive 
rule stating that DOE's proposed energy conservation standards for 
residential furnaces and commercial water heaters would result in the 
unavailability of ``performance characteristics'' within the meaning of 
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (i.e., by 
setting standards which can only be met by condensing combustion 
technology products/equipment) and (2) withdraw the proposed energy 
conservation standards for residential furnaces and commercial water 
heaters based upon such findings. In their petition, the Gas Industry 
Petitioners argue that DOE misinterpreted its mandate under section 
325(o)(4) of EPCA by failing to consider as a ``feature'' of the 
subject residential furnaces and commercial water heating equipment the 
compatibility of a product/equipment with conventional atmospheric 
venting systems and the ability to operate without generating liquid 
condensate requiring disposal via a plumbing connection. Consequently, 
the Gas Industry Petitioners assert that DOE's proposals would make 
unavailable non-condensing products/equipment with such features, which 
currently exist in the marketplace, in contravention of the statute. 
The petition makes a number of technical, legal, and economic arguments 
in favor of its suggested interpretation, and it points to DOE's past 
precedent related to space constraints and differences in available 
electrical power supply (and associated installation costs) as 
supporting its call to find that non-condensing technology amounts to a 
performance-related ``feature.'' Based upon these arguments, the Gas 
Industry Petitioners conclude that DOE should issue an interpretive 
rule treating non-condensing technology as a ``feature'' under EPCA, 
withdraw its rulemaking proposals for both residential furnaces and 
commercial water heaters, and proceed on the basis of this revised 
interpretation.

III. Response to Comments

    DOE received a number of comments on the Gas Industry Petition with 
commenters both supporting the petition for rulemaking and opposing the 
petition. Comments from gas industry associations, certain manufacturer 
associations, and certain individual manufacturers generally expressed 
support for the petition. Comments from efficiency advocacy 
organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, other manufacturers, 
and certain States and Attorneys General generally oppose it. The 
following sections of this proposed interpretive rule summarize the 
comments received on the Gas Industry Petition and provide DOE's 
responses to those comments. DOE then proposes an interpretation 
consistent with its statutory authority and that considers the comments 
received along with all other available information. To aid in 
organizing the comments, this section categorizes public comments on 
the Gas Industry Petition in terms of legal authority, technical 
matters, implementation, and other related issues.

A. Legal Authority

    As DOE explained in section II.B of this document, for the purpose 
of EPCA, DOE has in prior instances considered product/equipment 
``features'' in the context of the consumer's interaction with the 
appliance in question. With the submission of the Gas Industry 
Petition, DOE is re-evaluating its prior

[[Page 33015]]

interpretations in the context of the petition and providing 
stakeholders and the interested public an opportunity to submit 
comments and information to further inform DOE's consideration, 
particularly in regards to its technical implications, as well as the 
needs of consumers (including those with low incomes).
    DOE is issuing the interpretation as an interpretative rule within 
the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 5 U.S.C. 551(4), 
553(b). DOE is publishing a proposed interpretation to solicit comment 
and to provide the public with a clear and transparent explanation of 
DOE's view of a specific legal question: Whether non-condensing 
technology and associated venting constitutes a performance-related 
``feature'' under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4),\9\ as would support a separate 
product/equipment class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1),\10\ including the 
authority that Congress conferred on DOE through those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) for non-ASHRAE equipment; 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) for ASHRAE equipment where DOE is setting 
more-stringent standards.
    \10\ 42 U.S.C. 6316(a) for non-ASHRAE equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Legal Authority To Set Separate Product/Equipment Classes Based Upon 
Condensing and Non-Condensing Technologies
    The Gas Industry petition raises the issue of whether non-
condensing technology, including the associated venting, constitutes a 
``performance characteristic'' or ``feature'' under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4), and if it is so, whether it justifies a separate product/
equipment class under 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). Commenters had divergent 
views regarding DOE's legal authority to determine non-condensing 
technology used in furnaces and water heaters, including the associated 
venting, is a ``performance characteristic'' or ``feature'' within the 
meaning of the statute, and whether as a ``performance characteristic'' 
or ``feature'' it would justify a separate product/equipment class and 
standard. Such views are summarized in the immediately following 
paragraphs.
    Comments from the gas industry, certain manufacturers, housing 
associations, and a number of individuals generally supported the 
interpretation of ``performance characteristic'' and ``feature'' put 
forth in the Gas Industry Petition (i.e., non-condensing technology and 
the associated venting is a ``performance characteristic'' for the 
purpose of EPCA), arguing that DOE is statutorily prohibited from 
adopting standards that would effectively eliminate this performance 
characteristic. (Gas Industry Petitioners Joint Comment, No. 44 at pp. 
1 and 3; Mortex, No. 58 at p. 1; Weil-McLain, No. 29 at p. 1; PHCC, No. 
53 at p. 1; Southern Company, No. 33 at p. 1; Suburban Propane, No. 13 
at p. 1; Nortek, No. 35 at pp. 1 and 2; NMHC/NAA/NLHA Joint Comment, 
No. 41 at p. 1; Baker, No. 4 at p. 1; Matchneer, No. 21 at p. 1) These 
commenters emphasized the point presented in the Gas Industry Petition 
that the ability to use category I venting \11\ and to operate without 
formation of condensate are performance characteristics and/or features 
that DOE cannot eliminate under EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Category I venting has a non-positive vent pressure and is 
suitable for non-condensing appliances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Southern Company asserted that non-condensing furnaces and water 
heaters provide ``unique utility'' in terms of their ability to 
commonly vent with other gas appliances, vent into masonry chimneys, 
operate in unconditioned space without freeze protection, easily 
install in retrofit applications, and operate without the need to 
dispose of condensate. (Southern Company, No. 33 at p. 2) Nortek stated 
that an energy conservation standard that requires the use of 
condensing technology would eliminate the ability to combine the 
venting of other non-condensing appliances with the furnace or 
commercial water heater. (Nortek, No. 35 at p. 2) NMHC, NAAA, and NLHA 
stated that in the context of existing multifamily properties, 
installation of a condensing unit may require construction of an 
entirely new ventilation system within the apartment to meet the 
horizontal venting requirements of the condensing furnace unit, and in 
many properties, there is not sufficient clearance on the exterior wall 
of the property to locate a ventilation pipe due to existing windows 
and doors. (NMHC/NAA/NLHA Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 2) Regarding 
commercial hot water heaters, Rheem stated that according to the Energy 
Information Agency (EIA) 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 
Survey (CBECS) data, more than half of all commercial buildings were 
constructed before condensing commercial water heaters were introduced 
to the market and that in older buildings having greater than 3-stories 
with the water heater(s) located in the interior of the building 
structure, it is generally difficult, if not impossible, to replace 
non-condensing water heaters with condensing water heaters due 
primarily to the need to replace or reline existing vents/chimneys. 
(Rheem, No. 34 at p. 2) Southern Company further commented that non-
condensing units can be installed in unconditioned space without the 
use of potentially dangerous heat tapes or other devices that prevent 
condensate from freezing. (Southern Company, No. 33 at p. 4)
    Several of the commenters in support of the Gas Industry Petition 
asserted that there is precedent for establishing separate product 
classes for non-condensing furnaces and water heaters. (Gas Industry 
Petitioners Joint Comment, No. 44 at pp. 5-6; Mortex, No. 58 at p. 2; 
Southern Company, No. 33 at pp. 2-4; Nortek, No. 35 at p. 2; MHI, No. 
54 at p. 2) The Gas Industry Petitioners stated that the issues facing 
the replacement of a non-condensing unit with a condensing unit are 
similar, but greater in magnitude, to installation issues for products 
that DOE has established separate ``space-constrained'' product 
classes. (Gas Industry Petitioners Joint Comment, No. 44 at pp. 4-5) 
Southern Company specifically referenced as applicable precedent the 
separate product classes established for gas-fired natural draft 
commercial packaged boilers, the standard-size equipment class for 
package terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, space-constrained 
central air conditioners and heat pumps, tabletop water heaters, and 
compact products such as clothes dryers. (Southern Company, No. 33 at 
pp. 3-4) Mortex and Southern Company pointed to the establishment of 
separate classes of furnace fans based on use in a condensing versus 
non-condensing furnace as support for establishing separate classes as 
requested in the Gas Industry Petition. (Mortex, No. 58 at p. 2; 
Southern Company, No. 33 at p. 3)
    Various other commenters opposed the Gas Industry Petition and 
asserted that the method of venting, type of type of vent, and 
condensate disposal system associated with a furnace or water heater 
does not qualify as a performance-related characteristic or feature 
under EPCA. (CA IOUs Joint Comment, No. 45 at pp. 1-2; EarthJustice/
NRDC Joint Comment, No. 55 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, No. 10 at p. 1; Multi-
State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at pp. 1-2, 6; NEMA, No. 46 at p. 4; 
NEEA, No. 59 at pp. 1-2; CEC, No. 56 at pp. 1-2 ; NCLC/CFA Joint 
Comment, No. 50 at pp. 1-2; ASAP et al. Joint Comment, No. 61 at p. 4) 
Referencing DOE's prior, tentative analysis of the issue under EPCA, 
commenters stated that condensing and non-condensing furnaces and water 
heaters provide

[[Page 33016]]

identical performance characteristics in the form of warm air or hot 
water, respectively; that installation cost is not a performance 
characteristic for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); and that non-
condensing technology does not justify a separate product class. (CA 
IOUs Joint Comment, No. 45 at pp. 2-3; EarthJustice/NRDC Joint Comment, 
No. 55 at pp. 5 and 13; Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 7; 
NEEA, No. 59 at p. 5; CEC, No. 56 at p. 2; CEL, No. 3 at p. 1; NCLC/CFA 
Joint Comment, No. 50 at p. 5; ASAP et al. Joint Comment, No. 61 at p. 
4) NEMA stated that increased cost of installation is not a performance 
characteristic or feature under paragraphs 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 
(q)(1). (NEMA, No. 46 at pp. 4, 11) NEMA further stated that while the 
type of venting may be a ``characteristic'' or ``feature,'' it is not 
one that has utility to the consumer; the consumer suffers no loss of 
utility by no longer being able to use a ``type B'' metal vent with a 
condensing furnace. (NEMA, No, 46 at pp. 15-16) While NEMA agreed with 
the result of DOE's tentative determination, NEMA cautioned that DOE 
should not exclusively conflate an appliance's ``basic function'' with 
a useful feature, capacity, characteristic, size, or volume. (NEMA, No. 
46 at p. 17)
    EarthJustice and NRDC argued that Congress intended the provision 
at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) only to address the possibility that efficiency 
standards could completely destroy the market for a covered product. 
(EarthJustice/NRDC Joint Comment, No. 55 at p. 3) Additionally, 
EarthJustice and NRDC asserted that the difference in language between 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(iii)(II)(aa) indicates 
that ``performance characteristic'' means something different for 
residential products and commercial equipment. Specifically, this 
comment imparts significant meaning to Congress's placement of a single 
parentheses within these two statutory provisions; on the residential 
side, 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) describes ``performance characteristics'' as 
``(including reliability)'' and then following with ``features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes,'' but on the commercial side, 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) describes ``performance characteristics'' as 
``(including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes).'' 
(EarthJustice/NRDC Joint Comment, No. 55 at p. 4) EarthJustice and NRDC 
continued that the method of venting and condensate disposal are not 
performance features under either provision, but ``installation 
features.'' (EarthJustice/NRDC Joint Comment, No. 55 at p. 4)
    A number of commenters stated that not every technology design 
option should be captured as a separate ``performance characteristic'' 
or ``feature,'' because such approach would preclude DOE from ever 
setting incrementally more stringent energy conservation standards. (CA 
IOUs Joint Comment, No. 45 at p. 3; NRDC, No. 60 at p. 4, 6-7; Multi-
State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 7; A.O. Smith, No. 51 at p. 3; 
CEC, No. 56 at p. 1) Commenters asserted that the appropriate precedent 
is DOE's prior determination in the residential water heater rulemaking 
in which DOE determined that heat pump heaters provide hot water to a 
residence just as a traditional electric storage water heater does, 
and, therefore, a standard level that effectively bans electric 
resistance heating does not violate 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). (CA IOUs 
Joint Comment, No. 45 at p. 3; NEMA, No. 46 pp. 7-8)
    In opposition to the petition, commenters further stated that to 
the extent that there are installation cost differences between the 
venting technologies, those costs should be addressed in DOE's economic 
analysis and are not relevant to the determination of product/equipment 
classes. (CA IOUs Joint Comment, No. 45 at pp. 3-4; EarthJustice/NRDC 
Joint Comment, No. 55 at p. 7; NRDC, No. 60 at p. 8; ASAP et al. Joint 
Comment, No. 61 at pp. 3-4) EarthJustice and NRDC did state that DOE 
appropriately established separate product classes for through-the-wall 
central air conditioners and heat pumps to avoid requiring changes in 
the physical size of the through-the-wall systems and modifications to 
the buildings in which they are installed. (EarthJustice/NRDC Joint 
Comment, No. 55 at p. 10-11)
    A number of commenters stated that with rare exceptions, condensing 
furnaces and water heaters are no more difficult to install than non-
condensing units, and they added that in the small number of situations 
where there are difficulties, there are work-arounds. (Mitsubishi, No. 
10 at pp. 1-2, 6; Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 8; NEEP, 
No. 48 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 59 at pp. 1-2; CEC, No. 56 at p. 3; A.O. 
Smith, No. 51 at p. 4; Triple-T, No. 63 at p. 1) NEEA and the State 
Attorneys General provided the summary of a survey of residential 
furnace installers, based on which they stated that the percentage of 
homes with the conditions necessary to present significant issues is 
likely to be less than 5 percent of the retrofit installations. (NEEA, 
No. 59 at p. 2; Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 8) The 
State Attorneys General added that those interviewed for the survey 
stated that even in ``difficult'' cases, technical solutions are 
possible. (Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 8) Mitsubishi 
stated that cases where installation of condensing equipment is more 
difficult than replacing with non-condensing equipment are rare, and it 
estimated that such conditions exist in less than 1 percent of the 
total housing stock. (Mitsubishi, No. 10 at p. 4) The CEC identified a 
commercially-available product (i.e., FasNSeal 80/90 by DuraVent) that 
allows for combined venting of an atmospheric appliance and a 
condensing appliance, thereby mitigating the issue of ``orphaned'' 
water heaters. (CEC, No. 56 at p. 3)
    In response, DOE recognizes the importance of its interpretation of 
``performance characteristic'' and ``feature'' in the context of 
condensing vs. non-condensing furnaces, water heaters, and similarly 
situated products/equipment. The submission of comments and other 
information pursuant to the Gas Industry Petition has heightened DOE's 
awareness of the real world impacts facing consumers of such products/
equipment. In the past, DOE viewed venting of condensing vs. non-
condensing as a technological and economic issue incidental to the 
appliance's purpose of providing heat or hot water to a dwelling or 
business. DOE has now come to see that it may have been too narrow in 
its focus. Commenters have made persuasive arguments that a consumer's 
interaction with and perception of a furnace or water heater may go 
beyond its primary function.
    For example, adoption of an energy conservation standard requiring 
the use of condensing technology could potentially impact a home's 
aesthetics, if a new installation or retrofit were to entail additional 
venting in the conditioned space. Consumers would likely notice the new 
venting, and it might deprive them of some enjoyment related to the 
appearance of their home. In other cases, the condensing furnace may be 
of a different size or shape, and it may require modifications to 
existing utility closets or similarly constrained spaces, again 
potentially impacting the aesthetics of a room's layout. To that 
extent, non-condensing appliances may be similar to the space-
constrained appliances which EarthJustice and NRDC point to in their 
comments as an appropriate use of EPCA's features provision. (DOE 
requests comments regarding any size-related impacts of the use of 
condensing technology, such as

[[Page 33017]]

that related to the need for more heat exchanger surface area.)
    Although DOE continues to believe that the distinction between 
condensing and non-condensing appliances is largely a matter of 
economics for most consumers, for some subset of the population, it is 
something much more than that. As commenters representing the 
manufactured housing industry and individual owners of such units made 
clear, energy conservation standards at condensing levels could price 
some low-income consumers out of the housing market entirely. Below 
that level, other low-income consumers could face a financial hardship 
once they are forced to purchase a condensing furnace, which on average 
for mobile home gas furnaces costs between $152 and $331 (total 
installed cost; 2015$) more than a non-condensing furnace.\12\ 
(Consistently, DOE's data support the finding in the fuel switching 
analysis of the September 23, 2016 supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (September 2016 SNOPR) that accounted for instances where 
installation of a condensing furnace was either too difficult or 
costly, with the result being substitution of another type of heating 
product. 81 FR 65720, 65791-65793 (Sept. 23, 2016) (see also Chapter 8J 
of the SNOPR technical support document (TSD)). For such consumers, 
there could be difficult choices to be made between heat and other 
necessities such as food or medical care. The potential for overall 
energy savings after a long payback period does little to ameliorate 
such short-term impacts. In light of these reasons, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the totality of such concerns may raise non-condensing 
appliances (and their associated venting) sufficiently in the 
consciousness of the consumer as to be deemed a ``feature'' under EPCA. 
DOE does not believe that its proposed interpretation would have a 
cascading effect that would prevent it from ever setting a standard 
that would eliminate a less-efficient technology; instead, DOE would 
continue to determine ``features'' based upon consumer utility on a 
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See chapter 8 of the September 2016 SNOPR TSD for 
Residential Furnaces (Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0217).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Legal Authority To Set a ``Small'' Furnaces Product Class for Mobile 
Home Furnaces
    Manufactured housing associations, certain manufacturers to the 
manufactured housing industry, and a number of individuals faulted 
DOE's 2016 furnaces SNOPR (81 FR 65720 (Sept. 23, 2016)) for its 
failure to consider a ``small'' mobile home furnaces product class. Due 
to the cost impacts to manufactured housing consumers and these 
consumers' sensitivity to price increases, these commenters argued that 
DOE should have considered a ``small'' product class for mobile home 
furnaces. According to these commenters, manufactured housing is 
disproportionately impacted due to the comparatively high number of 
manufactured homes that rely on non-condensing gas furnaces as compared 
to site-built homes, as well as the disproportionate number of homes in 
the south where the payback of a high-efficiency furnace is less. (MHI, 
No. 54 at pp. 1, 3-4; MMHAM, No. 43 at p. 2; MMHA, No. 42 at p. 2; 
IMHA-RVIC, No. 32 at p. 2; NMMHA, No. 28 at pp. 1-2; WHA, No. 24 at pp. 
1-2; MHIA, No. 23 at p. 2; Oliver Technologies, No. 16 at p. 1; Mortex, 
No. 58 at p. 2; Individuals, Nos. 17-22, 25-27, 30-31, 36-40, 47, 57 at 
pp. 1-2)
    In the September 2016 furnaces SNOPR, DOE explained its rationale 
for proposing that energy conservation standards for mobile home gas 
furnaces should be set at 92 percent annual fuel utilization efficiency 
(AFUE). 81 FR 65720, 65743-65744 (Sept. 23, 2016). First, DOE stated 
that under the proposed standard, 63 percent of mobile home gas 
furnaces (MHGFs) would see a net benefit from such standards, whereas 
only 8 percent would experience a net cost. DOE anticipated minimal 
fuel switching, because for new mobile homes, the type of heating 
equipment tends to be determined by the intended location of the home, 
the expected heating load, and the availability of a gas supply. For 
replacement applications, DOE found that switching away from gas is not 
likely because the cost increase for installing a condensing furnace 
relative to a non-condensing furnace is not a significant factor due to 
a much simpler venting system compared to installation of a non-
weatherized gas furnace (NWGF). Id. at 81 FR 65743. As to the costs, 
DOE's analyses determined that the expected average cost of a 
condensing furnace in a new mobile home is comparable to a non-
condensing furnace, because the increase in the price of the product is 
offset by a lower installation cost for a condensing furnace for most 
installations.\13\ The SNOPR noted that new furnaces installed in 
mobile homes must be approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and 
Urban Development, which requires special sealed combustion (direct 
vent) for all non-condensing and condensing installations of 
manufactured home furnaces. (24 CFR 3280.709(d)(1)) For condensing 
installations, the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) piping is usually less 
expensive than the metal vent system used for non-condensing furnaces. 
Thus, DOE reasoned that there is not likely to be any effect on the 
affordability of single-section mobile homes due to the SNOPR's 
proposed MHGF standard. Id. at 81 FR 65744.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In the SNOPR, DOE stated that the standard for MHGF furnace 
fans requires technology (improved PSC motor) that entails a slight 
price increase ($11) in 2013$ compared to the baseline PSC motor 
(see furnace fan energy conservation standards final rule; available 
at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2010-BT-STD-
0011-0117). This cost is applicable to less than 50 percent of 
installations because the rest of the market is already comprised of 
MHGFs with improved PSC motors or motors with higher efficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, to the extent DOE moves to consider non-condensing 
furnaces and water heaters (and associated ductwork) to be a 
``feature'' under EPCA, these commenters' concerns should be resolved, 
because mobile home purchasers would retain the choice of purchasing a 
furnace using non-condensing or condensing technology.

B. Fuel Switching

    A number of commenters expressed concern that a national condensing 
furnaces standard would drive fuel switching and/or extend the use of 
less efficient appliances, because consumers who cannot afford more-
expensive condensing technology will choose to switch to a non-gas 
heating option, repair their existing gas furnace, or use other less-
efficient means of heating such as space heaters. (Gas Industry 
Petitioners Joint Comment, No. 44 at p. 3; MHI, No. 54 at p. 5; PHCC, 
No. 53 at p. 2; NMHC/NAA/NLHA Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 2)
    In contrast, the CEC argued that fuel switching is a cost impact, 
not a utility impact, as it does not disrupt service to the consumer of 
warm air or hot water. (CEC, No. 56 at p. 3) The CEC also stated that 
the costs related to fuel switching were included in DOE's life-cycle 
cost analysis in the September 2016 SNOPR for residential furnaces. 
(CEC, No. 56 at p. 3)
    EarthJustice and NRDC stated that fuel switching is not an obstacle 
to amended standards under EPCA. These commenters noted that for small 
gas furnaces, EPCA required that DOE prescribe energy conservation 
standards at a level ``which the Secretary determines is not likely to 
result in a

[[Page 33018]]

significant shift from gas heating to electric resistance heating with 
respect to either residential construction or furnace replacement,'' 
and asserted that Congress could have easily extended this requirement 
to other gas products but did not. EarthJustice and NRDC stated that, 
therefore, Congress did not intend to prevent the adoption of standards 
that may lead consumers to change their space or water heating energy 
sources. These commenters further argued that Congress's instruction to 
avoid fuel-switching in the initial small furnaces rulemaking would be 
superfluous if other parts of the statute were already intended to 
prohibit fuel switching. (EarthJustice/NRDC Joint Comment, No. 55 at 
pp. 8-9)
    As the commenters noted, DOE addressed the potential for fuel 
switching in the September 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 65720, 65723, and Chapter 
8 of the September 2016 SNOPR Technical Support Document (TSD).\14\ DOE 
agrees with the CEC, EarthJustice, and NRDC that concerns about fuel 
switching alone or in isolation would probably not justify a 
determination that non-condensing appliances (and associated venting) 
constitute a ``feature'' deserving a separate product/equipment class 
under EPCA. However, for the reasons previously stated, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the choice of purchasing a non-condensing 
appliance is something that matters to some significant portion of 
consumers (especially persons with low-incomes), with concerns ranging 
from impacts on the aesthetics of the home to overall choice of housing 
options. To the extent DOE determines non-condensing technology (and 
associated venting) to be a feature, any fuel switching among such 
appliances going forward will be voluntary on the part of the consumer 
and not driven by government regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The September 2016 SNOPR TSD is available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Analytical Issues

    Some commenters raised concerns with the analytical methodology 
underlying DOE's rulemakings for residential furnaces and commercial 
water heaters. (Gas Industry Petitioners Joint Comment, No. 44 at pp. 
12-13; Rheem, No. 34 at pp. 2-3; NMHC/NAA/NLHA Joint Comment, No. 41 at 
p. 2; Weil McLain, No. 29 at p. 1) Among the issues raised by these 
commenters were that the national average approach to economic 
justification fails to consider the excessive localized costs that are 
certain to be incurred if non-condensing performance characteristics 
are eliminated. (Weil McLain, No. 29 at pp. 1-2)
    DOE has attempted in prior residential furnaces and commercial 
water heaters rulemakings to capture localized effects (e.g., regional 
climate, local utility rates, building type, local contractor labor 
rates, high-cost installations) in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analyses. 
DOE presented the average LCC results in summary form in the September 
23, 2016 SNOPR. 81 FR 65720, 65814-65816. In chapter 8 of the September 
23, 2016 furnaces SNOPR TSD, DOE presented the results in charts 
showing the mean and median LCC savings, along with the 5th, 25th, 
75th, and 95th percentiles, to demonstrate the impacts of more extreme 
cases (both positive and negative). The same type of analysis was 
conducted for commercial water heaters in the May 31, 2016 NOPR. 81 FR 
34440, 34482-34488.
    Commenters also asserted that there is a fundamental flaw in DOE's 
modeling approach in that the base-case distribution of efficiencies is 
assigned randomly, rather than accounting for some consumers making 
economically rational decisions. (Gas Industry Petitioners Joint 
Comment, No. 44 at pp. 11-12) In response, DOE would point out that the 
base-case efficiency distributions for residential furnaces and 
commercial water heaters are not entirely random. For furnaces, 
assignment of efficiency in the base-case was based on both the region 
and specific building in which it is installed, with the market shares 
of furnace efficiencies first assigned by region based on historical 
shipments data and then allocated to specific buildings within each 
region based on the existing furnace being replaced. For commercial 
water heaters, the no-new-standards case and the selections in the LCC 
model were also not completely random, and rather were based on 
distributions of models in DOE's database, which included all 
commercially-available equipment on the market at the time and which 
(due to the absence of shipments data) represented the best data 
available to DOE at the time.
    Furthermore, Rheem suggested that the EIA 2003 CBECS data used in 
DOE's commercial water heaters proposal is outdated, and DOE should 
recalculate results using more up-to-date data and re-evaluate its 
proposed standards accordingly. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 2) In response, 
DOE notes that CBECS 2003 was the most recent version available at the 
time the analysis was conducted for the notice of proposed rulemaking 
for commercial water heating equipment. In any potential future 
rulemaking documents for commercial water heating equipment, DOE would 
update its analysis to utilize the most recent version of CBECS 
(currently the 2012 version).
    The National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), the National 
Apartment Association (NAA), and the National Leased Housing 
Association (NLHA) commented that DOE did not include an adequate 
analysis of the venting and condensate disposal system installation 
costs for multi-story, multi-family properties in its proposals. (NMHC/
NAA/NLHA Joint Comment, No. 41 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that 
requirements specific to multi-story, multi-family properties were 
considered in the LCC analyses for residential furnaces and commercial 
water heating equipment. DOE acknowledged that multi-family buildings 
may require additional measures to replace non-condensing furnaces with 
condensing furnaces, noted that it did not find data that would allow a 
reliable estimation of the associated costs, and, therefore, requested 
comment on the issue. 81 FR 65720, 65778. DOE estimated in the 
September 23, 2016 SNOPR that more than 60 percent of replacement 
multi-family NWGF installations would not be impacted by the proposed 
standard. 81 FR 65720, 65780. For commercial water heaters, in the May 
2016 NOPR, DOE included RECS data for multi-family buildings in the 
building sample used for its analysis, in order to account for the 
unique venting requirements of multi-family buildings, such as the vent 
length. 81 FR 34440, 34482 (May 31, 2016).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See chapter 8 and Appendix 8-D of the Commercial Water 
Heating Equipment NOPR TSD for further discussion. Available at: 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0042-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rheem stated that efficiency standards for commercial water heaters 
that require condensing technology could lead to fuel switching or 
multiple residential water heaters as alternatives, and suggested that 
DOE should consider such costs as part of the life-cycle cost analysis 
for commercial water heaters. (Rheem, No. 34 at p. 3) As discussed in 
the May 2016 NOPR, DOE considered whether to model fuel switching in 
the analysis for commercial water heating equipment and tentatively 
determined that fuel switching would be unlikely to occur. 81 FR 34440, 
34494 (May 31, 2016).

[[Page 33019]]

    Finally, Southern Company argued that DOE's analysis for 
residential furnaces grossly overestimates the capabilities of DuraVent 
FNS 80/90 as a technological solution, because it does not allow a 
condensing appliance to operate with the same utility as a non-
condensing model due to restrictions on the circumstances in which it 
can be used. (Southern Company, No. 33 at pp. 6-8)
    DOE clarifies that it considered use of the DuraVent FasNSeal (FNS) 
80/90 only as a sensitivity analysis; DOE's main analysis does not 
assume that the DuraVent FNS 80/90 would be used in any installations. 
Because of the uncertainty regarding applicability of FNS 80/90 and 
other new venting technologies, and lack of available field data on 
such venting installations, DOE has consistently maintained its 
approach of only using this option in a sensitivity analysis rather 
than its main analysis. In this sensitivity analysis, DOE only applied 
the FNS80/90 option to installations that could meet the FNS 80/90 
installation requirements. While the previously noted comment from the 
CEC identified the FNS 80/90 (CEC, No. 56 at p. 3) as a means to 
address orphaned water heaters, the technology is only commercially 
available for applications with metal vents, and as pointed out by 
Southern, can only be used in certain situations where the vent can be 
installed at the appropriate angle to drain condensate. To address 
stakeholders' concerns regarding overestimating the number of 
installations that could use new venting technologies, DOE plans to 
include an additional sensitivity analysis in any potential future 
rulemaking documents for furnaces, where the FNS 80/90 option is 
applied to installations that can currently meet the FNS 80/90 
installation requirements.
    Finally, DOE notes that in its February 2019 NOPR regarding 
proposed changes to its Process Rule, the Department has announced its 
plans to conduct a peer review of its suite of rulemaking analyses as a 
second phase to the revisions of its Process Rule. 84 FR 3910, 3936-
3938 (Feb. 13, 2019). Thus, DOE anticipates an ongoing discussion about 
potential refinements to its analytical methodologies and modeling, 
including those issues raised by commenters on the Gas Industry 
Petition.

D. Consumer Impacts

    A number of efficiency and consumer advocacy organizations and the 
State Attorneys General argued that granting the requests in the Gas 
Industry Petition would negatively impact consumers due to lost energy 
and cost savings. (NEEP, No. 48 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 59 at p. 3; NCLC/
CFA, No. 50 at pp. 2-3; Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at pp. 9-
10; ASAP et al. Joint Comment, No. 61 at pp. 1-3) The State Attorneys 
General also asserted that such action would disrupt State and local 
energy and climate goals. (Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at pp. 
9-10) The Center for Efficient Living argued that the Gas Industry 
Petitioners do not represent the parties most directly impacted by the 
regulations at issue, as compared to consumers and manufacturers, but 
instead, DOE must recognize the significant advances in heating, 
ventilation, and air-conditioning technology in the past 10 years and 
not take actions which counteract the associated public health, indoor 
air quality (IAQ), and environmental benefits. (CEL, No. 3 at p. 1)
    In contrast, individual commenters who support manufactured housing 
stated that Federal regulation should encourage manufactured housing as 
an affordable ownership option, but DOE's proposal inhibits that by 
increasing new home or retrofit costs, thereby potentially pricing 
consumers out of the manufactured housing market. These commenters 
stated that the median household income of manufactured homeowners is 
$30,000, which makes them very sensitive to any change in first cost of 
a new home or retrofit costs (e.g., reworking existing utility closets 
due to larger units). It was also noted that there is no exemption or 
other accommodation for ``small'' furnaces, which are often used in 
manufactured homes. (Matchneer et al. (Form Comments), Nos. 17-22, 25-
27, 30-31, 36-40, 47, 57 at p. 1)
    As discussed, in establishing and amending energy conservation 
standards, EPCA prescribes a number of factors that DOE must consider. 
These factors include the savings in operating costs throughout the 
estimated average life of the covered product compared to any increase 
in the price of, or in the initial charges for, or maintenance expenses 
of, the covered products which are likely to result from a standard. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE historically has accounted for and 
considered the potential energy savings to consumers through the LCC 
and PBP analyses in all of its rulemakings. In contrast, however, 
EPCA's ``features'' provision demonstrates that Congress intended 
certain aspects of products with consumer utility to be preserved 
despite the energy savings or other benefits that might result from 
their elimination. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) DOE recognizes the 
important policy concerns raised by these commenters, but the 
Department is constrained to act within its statutory authority. Thus, 
to the extent DOE interprets EPCA's ``features'' provision as 
supporting separate products/equipment classes for condensing and non-
condensing appliances, the concerns of commenters regarding the 
affordability of manufactured housing are largely resolved. For other 
consumers, DOE will account for them as part of the standard-setting 
process and develop energy conservation standards that meet the seven 
criteria for economic justification, are technologically feasible, and 
produce significant energy savings, as required by EPCA. DOE would note 
that for consumers who rent (including low-income consumers), energy 
savings from mandatory energy conservation standards set at condensing 
levels are likely to be offset, at least in part, by higher rents to 
cover the landlord/owner's first cost of the more expensive appliance.

E. Other Issues

    Comments from the State Attorneys General and certain efficiency 
advocacy organizations commented that other nations such as Canada and 
the United Kingdom have successfully adopted and implemented 
regulations requiring condensing technology. (CEC, No. 56 at p. 3; 
Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 at p. 8; ASAP et al. Joint 
Comment, No. 61 at p. 4) In response, DOE acknowledges both the energy 
savings potential of condensing appliances and the adoption of related 
regulatory requirements by other nations such as Canada and the U.K. 
However, DOE must act in accordance with domestic law (i.e., EPCA) in 
formulating energy conservation standards, complying with all relevant 
requirements, including the features provision.
    Additionally, the State Attorneys General argued that granting the 
Gas Industry Petition would impermissibly further delay DOE's 
publication of final rule for the products/equipment in question, rules 
which EPCA requires DOE to publish within two years after a proposal. 
The commenters pointed out that DOE's statutory deadlines for 
promulgating final furnace and water heater standards expired in March 
2017 and May 2018, respectively. (Multi-State AGs Joint Comment, No. 49 
at pp. 4-6) In response, DOE remains cognizant of its legal deadlines 
and plans to act expeditiously to comply with its mandates pursuant to 
EPCA. At the

[[Page 33020]]

same time, the Gas Industry Petitioners have the right to petition for 
rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that 
``[e]ach agency shall give an interested person the right to petition 
for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(e). 
DOE is not at liberty to pick and choose among its legal obligations, 
but instead it must comply with all applicable legal requirements. In 
this case, DOE must evaluate and respond to the Gas Industry Petition 
and then implement any revised interpretation in the context of its 
ongoing rulemaking obligations.

IV. DOE's Proposed Revised Interpretation

    In consideration of public comments and other information received 
on the Gas Industry Petition, DOE proposes to revise its interpretation 
of EPCA's ``features'' provision in the context of condensing and non-
condensing technology used in furnaces, water heating equipment, and 
similarly-situated appliances (where permitted by EPCA). Based on those 
comments, DOE prospectively interprets the statute to provide that 
adoption of energy conservation standards that would limit the market 
to natural gas and/or propane gas furnaces, water heaters, or similarly 
situated products/equipment (where permitted by EPCA) that use 
condensing combustion technology would result in the unavailability of 
a performance related feature within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) and 42 U.S.C. 
6316(a).
    The statute accords the Secretary of Energy considerable discretion 
in terms of determining whether a performance characteristic of a 
covered product/equipment amounts to a performance-related feature 
which cannot be eliminated through adoption of an energy conservation 
standard. DOE has taken the opportunity presented by the Gas Industry 
Petition to reconsider its historical interpretation of EPCA's 
``features'' provision in the context of condensing and non-condensing 
technologies used by certain gas appliances. Contrary to the 
petitioners' assessment, DOE found this to be a close case, with 
persuasive arguments on both sides of the issue. However, a number of 
factors have convinced DOE to revise its interpretation.
    First, DOE acknowledges that it has, in the past, taken space 
constraints and similar limitations into account when setting product 
classes (e.g., PTACs, ventless clothes dryers). For example, DOE was 
sensitive to the costs associated with requiring expensive building 
modifications when it decided to set separate equipment classes for 
standard size PTACs and non-standard size PTACs. 73 FR 58772 (Oct. 7, 
2008). DOE expects that similar expenses would occur here, if DOE were 
to hold to its historical interpretation, at least for some subset of 
installations. Although limited data were provided to address the 
actual costs that consumers and commercial customers would face to 
modify their existing category I venting, there is little doubt that 
some number of such installations would be quite costly. These more 
complicated/costly installations are documented as part of DOE's 
analysis of the venting costs for residential furnaces, which 
considered potential venting modifications that could be required when 
replacing an existing category I furnace with a condensing (category 
IV) furnace (see appendix 8D of the 2016 SNOPR TSD for further 
details).
    Second, DOE has in the past focused on the consumer's interaction 
with the product/equipment in deciding whether a performance feature is 
at issue. In the context of residential furnaces and commercial water 
heaters, DOE has focused on the primary function of the appliance 
(e.g., providing heat to a home or potable hot water) in establishing 
the nexus to the consumer. In the past, DOE opined that consumers were 
only interested in obtaining heat or hot water from the appliance, so 
they would not care about the mechanism for generating that end 
product. However, commenters have made clear that in at least some 
cases, the physical changes associated with a condensing appliance may 
change a home's aesthetics (e.g., by adding new venting into the living 
space or decreasing closet or other storage space), thereby impacting 
consumer utility even under DOE's prior approach.
    Third, DOE notes that it has been its policy to remain neutral 
regarding competing energy sources in the marketplace. As certain 
commenters have pointed out and as DOE's own analyses have shown, some 
enhanced level of fuel switching is likely to accompany standard 
setting using DOE's prior interpretation. Many consumers who are 
currently gas customers may show a proclivity for that fuel type and 
would be negatively impacted by a standard that requires the purchase 
of a condensing unit to the extent they feel compelled to change to a 
different fuel type. DOE seeks neither to determine winners and losers 
in the marketplace nor to limit consumer choice.
    Finally, DOE is very concerned about ensuring energy affordability, 
particularly for persons with low incomes. Although energy efficiency 
improvements may pay for themselves over time, there is a significant 
increase in first-cost associated with furnaces and water heaters using 
condensing technology. For consumers with difficult installation 
situations (e.g., inner-city row houses), there would be the added cost 
of potentially extensive venting modifications. In certain cases, 
commenters have argued that accommodating condensing products may not 
even be possible. Although DOE continues to believe that costs are 
properly addressed in the economic analysis portion of its rulemakings, 
it remains cognizant of such issues. DOE has tentatively concluded that 
the other reasons discussed immediately above are sufficient in and of 
themselves to justify the Department's proposed change in 
interpretation, but it acknowledges these cost impacts in order to be 
fully transparent in terms of the agency's thinking.
    Creating separate product classes for condensing and non-condensing 
furnaces, water heaters, and similarly situated products/equipment 
(where permitted by EPCA) would prevent many of these potential 
problems. Although DOE's proposed revised approach may have some impact 
on overall energy saving potential as a result of establishing separate 
product/equipment classes, that is not the touchstone of EPCA's 
``features'' provision; through that provision, Congress expressed its 
will that certain product utilities will take priority over additional 
energy savings measures. (For example, DOE did not eliminate the oven 
window which consumers found useful, despite the potential for further 
energy savings.) With that said, DOE believes that any potentially 
negative programmatic impacts of its revised interpretation are likely 
to be limited. This interpretation is likely to impact only a limited 
set of appliances, and DOE notes that market trends have favored the 
growing reach of condensing furnaces, even as non-condensing 
alternatives have remained available. DOE has every reason to believe 
that such trends will continue.
    DOE would clarify the limitations of its proposed revised 
interpretation, based upon the existing statutory provisions. As 
discussed previously, DOE can effect this change for all relevant 
consumer products, all non-ASHRAE commercial and industrial equipment, 
and ASHRAE equipment in those instances where DOE has clear and 
convincing evidence to adopt levels higher than the levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1.

[[Page 33021]]

    As noted, additional, subsequent DOE action is required before the 
interpretation in this proposed interpretive rule can be implemented. 
This proposed interpretive rule, therefore, does not alter the 
Department's current regulations. This interpretation does not and will 
not be used to abrogate DOE's responsibilities under existing laws or 
regulations, nor does it change DOE's existing statutory authorities or 
those of its regulators at the Federal, State, or local level. DOE 
anticipates continued engagement and productive involvement of members 
of the public and the regulated community in subsequent activities that 
may follow this interpretation.

V. Conclusion

    As discussed immediately above, DOE is granting the Gas Industry 
Petition to the extent that it prospectively interprets the statute to 
provide that adoption of energy conservation standards that would limit 
the market of natural gas and/or propane gas furnaces, water heaters, 
or similarly situated products/equipment (where permitted by EPCA) that 
use condensing combustion technology would result in the unavailability 
of a performance related feature within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) and 42 U.S.C. 
6316(a). Such interpretation would apply to all applicable residential 
products, non-ASHRAE commercial equipment, and ASHRAE equipment where 
DOE adopts a level more stringent than the ASHRAE level.
    DOE is denying the Gas Industry Petition as it pertains to those 
rulemakings where ASHRAE sets standard levels that trigger DOE to 
consider and adopt those level (unless DOE finds clear and convincing 
evidence to adopt more-stringent levels), due to lack of authority. DOE 
is also denying the Gas Industry Petition's request for DOE to withdraw 
the proposed rules for residential furnaces and commercial water 
heaters as unnecessary. If this interpretive rule is finalized, DOE 
anticipates developing supplemental notices of proposed rulemaking 
(SNOPRs) that would implement the new legal interpretation for those 
two rulemakings.
    Through this interpretive rule, DOE states its understanding of the 
best interpretation of the statutory text in light of the language and 
purposes of EPCA, so as to be consistent with Congress's direction. In 
light of further consideration and the information presented with and 
in response to the Gas Industry Petition, DOE's position has evolved, 
and it has tentatively concluded that this revised interpretation is 
the best reading of EPCA's ``features'' provision. This interpretation 
does not, by itself, change existing applicable DOE regulations or 
policies regarding individual appliance standards rulemakings. 
Implementation of this interpretation in the context of energy 
conservation standards for particular products or equipment, and any 
changes to existing policies that may be appropriate in light of this 
interpretation will be the subject of subsequent actions.
    DOE wishes to make clear that an interpretative rule is a type of 
rule or regulation within the meaning of those terms in the 
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551(4). It is well 
established under the APA that agencies have the authority to issue 
interpretative rules, and that these rules are a valuable tool for an 
agency to use to advise the public prospectively and in a clear and 
transparent manner of the agency's construction of a statute it 
administers. As such, an interpretative rule does not have force and 
effect on its own. It is not until the agency takes an action in which 
the interpretation is applied that the interpretation can have an 
effect and, even then, only through that subsequent action.
    When DOE considers this statutory interpretation in the context of 
taking any action in the future with regard to energy conservation 
standards rulemakings, it will evaluate its policies to determine if 
any require revision to accommodate this interpretation, and if so, DOE 
will follow applicable procedures to make any necessary changes. 
However, DOE's legal interpretations do not themselves constitute 
agency action.
    DOE's interpretation does not have legal effect on its own. As 
appropriate, the public will be notified and have an opportunity to 
comment on any such proposals implementing the interpretation. 
Furthermore, the many substantive comments received, including comments 
that led to revisions of DOE's interpretation of the ``features'' 
provision,'' as reflected in this proposed interpretive rule, indicate 
that the public had a meaningful opportunity to comment on DOE's 
general interpretation. As DOE has indicated, there will be additional 
processes after the interpretation has been issued but before any 
rulemaking decisions are implemented.

VI. Public Participation

Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
listed in the DATES section of this document, comments and information 
regarding this proposed interpretive rule.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information prior to submitting comments. Your contact 
information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. 
Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your 
first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter 
representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 
because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to 
contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through 
http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or postal mail. 
Comments and documents via email, hand delivery, or postal mail will 
also be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want

[[Page 33022]]

your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information in your cover letter each time you 
submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you 
submit via postal mail or hand delivery, please provide all items on a 
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed 
copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted electronically 
should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, 
WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are 
not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or viruses. 
Documents should not include any special characters or any form of 
encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic 
signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery two well-marked copies: One copy 
of the document marked ``Confidential'' including all the information 
believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``Non-
confidential'' with the information believed to be confidential 
deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE 
will make its own determination about the confidential status of the 
information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
its process for considering regulatory actions. DOE actively encourages 
the participation and interaction of the public during the comment 
period. Interactions with and between members of the public provide a 
balanced discussion of the issues and assist DOE in determining how to 
proceed with a regulatory action. Anyone who wishes to be added to DOE 
mailing list to receive future document and information about this 
matter should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff 
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this document 
granting in part and denying in part the relevant petition for 
rulemaking and issuing a proposed interpretive rule.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2019.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-14553 Filed 7-10-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P