Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

73954

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
inferred as a distinguishing trait of a commercial water heater i.e., different types of venting. Bradford White, No.
146 at p. 2 Bradford White commented that reliability, which it asserted does not directly relate to the utility that a consumer sees from a product, is considered a characteristic in the context of the features provision of EPCA. Id. The commenter reasoned that, therefore, venting could similarly be treated as a distinguishing feature even if it does not directly relate to the utility e.g., hot water. Id. Bradford White disagreed with DOEs statement that energy efficiency differences arise from technologies and design parameters other than size, arguing that condensing technology requires more heat exchange surface area and larger tank size, thereby increasing the size of the overall system and contributing to installation concerns. Id. at p. 3
Bradford White also requested that DOE
provide the data it used to re-evaluate the January 2021 Interpretive Final Rule. Id.
Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S. Boiler commented that the historical definition of utility for furnaces and water heaters, provided by DOE, ignores the installation considerations that impact the consumer directly. Crown Boiler, No.
127 at p. 3; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130
at p. 3; U.S. Boiler, No. 129 at p. 3
GEUAG commented that, in considering what constitutes a feature, DOE must consider that condensing appliances cannot physically or economically perform in conjunction with noncondensing venting systems. GEUAG, No. 132 at p. 11 GEUAG stated that in order to preserve consumer choice over the use of those energy alternatives that best meet the consumers economic and operational needs, the January 2021
Final Interpretative Rule should be maintained. Id. at pp. 23
AGA et al. commented that noncondensing furnaces and water heaters provide unique utility in 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. AGA et al., No. 135 at p.
29 AGA et al. stated that the facts in the record support a finding that designspecific constraints related to noncondensing technology present important performance-related features, valued by consumers, that justify treating non-condensing appliances as a separate class from condensing appliances. Id. at p. 30 AGA et al.
objected to the suggestion that features
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

that make the product work in a consumers existing home or business are not important performance-related features. Id. at p. 27
Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S. Boiler stated that a layperson consumer may not understand the technical issues associated with a move from Category I atmospheric venting i.e., the venting commonly used in conjunction with non-condensing products to Category IV condensing venting, but consumers will notice the impacts of the associated structural modifications necessary to accommodate the Category IV vent system, the presence of a condensing vent terminal on the side of their house, and the resulting noise and/or an exhaust plume that damages the building exterior, harms plants, or simply obstructs the view. Crown Boiler No. 127 at p. 3; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130 at p. 3; U.S. Boiler, No.
129 at p. 3
HARDI commented that it disagrees with DOEs interpretation of consumer utility and determining it only through the lens of whether the feature benefits the consumer. The commenter argued that changes to the living space caused by these retrofits do impact the utility of the new equipment, often in negative ways. HARDI, No. 142 at pp. 23 For example, HARDI commented that replacing venting systems and/or relocating equipment in existing homes could lead to changes in the living space that would be unnecessary if a noncondensing system were installed, and that condensing venting systems may require freeze mitigation equipment to prevent condensate from freezing that could be impractical. Id. HARDI
asserted limiting the utility definition simply to how a consumer interacts with the equipment in daily life is not a proper measurement of utility, particularly for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning HVAC equipment, which HARDI stated is often considered an invisible good i.e., if the product continues to operate as designed, the consumer is unaware of its existence.
Id. at p. 3
HARDI also commented that inclusion of size in the features provision is not specifically limited to the size of the equipment itself, and that the change in size caused by the encroachment of a consumers living space due to new venting or increased equipment closet size would similarly violate EPCAs protections. Id. Crown Boiler, New Yorker Boiler, and U.S.
Boiler asserted that the potential loss of living space to accommodate a new condensing vent system is tantamount to setting a standard that makes an
PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

existing appliance size unavailable, even if the size of the appliance itself is unchanged. Crown Boiler No. 127 at p.
3; New Yorker Boiler, No. 130 at p. 3;
U.S. Boiler, No. 129 at p. 3 APGA et al.
commented that the concept of preserving the availability of a product size is the same as preserving the availability of products that are compatible with the built-in venting systems provided to serve the appliances installed in those spaces in that in both cases, the statute prohibits efficiency standards that leave purchasers without the kinds of products that the infrastructure of their building was designed to accommodate.
APGA et al., No. 140 at pp. 4, 11
DOE responds to these comments as follows. As discussed in the August 2021 NOPIR and in the following paragraphs, there is a strong statutory basis for returning to DOEs historical interpretation of viewing the utility of a product or equipment as an aspect of the appliance that is accessible to the layperson consumer and is based upon user operation and interaction with that appliance. As stated, EPCA prohibits the Secretary from prescribing an amended or new standard if the Secretary finds and publishes such finding that interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product or certain covered equipment type or class of performance characteristics including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretarys finding. 42 U.S.C.
6295o4; 42 U.S.C.
6313a6BiiiIIaa; 42 U.S.C.
6316a EPCA does not define these listed attributes or the related utility of such features. Therefore, to understand further those attributes that qualify as features and their relevant utility, DOE looks to EPCA as a whole and the purpose of the statute. See Robinson v.
Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 1997
To this end, DOE has once again carefully examined the relevant statutory provisions and would highlight the following.
First, EPCA authorizes DOE to prescribe new or amended energy conservation standards for covered products and covered equipment. 42
U.S.C. 6295a2; 42 U.S.C. 6313 EPCA
defines energy conservation standard, in relevant part, as a performance standard that prescribes the minimum energy efficiency or maximum energy use of an appliance. 42 U.S.C. 62916;

E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1