Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

73956

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
conservation standards may result in the unavailability of certain inefficient technologies. Preserving inefficient technologies would be inimical to the statutes energy-saving purposes.
Accordingly, EPCAs features provision is targeted to ensure preservation of only certain performance characteristics including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes. 42 U.S.C. 6295o4.
However, as discussed in section II.C of this document, an overly broad reading of the features provision to include features that do not impact the utility of the covered product would preserve inefficient technologies at the expense of EPCAs energy conservation goals and frustrate the purpose of EPCA.
In the August 2021 NOPIR, DOE
clarified that the proposed view of the features provision in the present case of non-condensing gas-fired residential furnaces and commercial water heaters is distinguishable from certain other products that the Department has regulated in the past e.g., spaceconstrained central air conditioners and ventless and compact clothes dryers. 86
FR 48049, 48055 August 27, 2021.
Certain commenters agreed with the reasoning in DOEs August 2021 NOPIR
that DOEs past determinations of the statutes features provision were properly applied and that the current case examining condensing vs. noncondensing technology is distinguishable. Along these lines, NEEA commented that the interpretation proposed in the August 2021 NOPIR is consistent with DOEs historical interpretation of a performance-related feature and that the features of water heaters and furnaces accessible to a layperson that affect user operation are the ability of the equipment to provide hot water or heated air on demand when called for by the end user, which does not depend on the technology used to heat the water or how the equipment is vented. NEEA, No. 137 at p. 2 NEEA distinguished the present issue from DOEs prior interpretation of the features provision in the context of ventless clothes dryers, stating that ventless clothes dryers allow for the installation of a clothes dryer for certain consumers that would otherwise not be able to install a clothes dryer, whereas a condensing product can always be installed, despite a small percentage of cases where installation is complicated.
Id. NBI commented that the proposed interpretation follows the precedent set in the consumer water heater rulemaking in which DOE declined to establish a separate product class for heat pump water heaters, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

similarly raised questions of additional cost and complexity due to the need for installation of a condensate drain and vent changes. NBI, No. 128 at p. 1
citing 75 FR 20112, 20135 April 16, 2010
In contrast, other commenters viewed DOEs proposed approach in the August 2021 NOPIR as conflicting with the Departments past precedent. For example, AHRI and IER cited the rulemaking for ventless clothes dryers as precedent for the proposition that venting provides utility. AHRI, No. 139
at p. 4; IER, No. 138 at p. 5 IER stated that utility of a residential furnace to the consumer is not merely heated air, but also, based on the DOEs previous ruling on ventless clothes dryers, installation considerations. IER, No. 138 at p. 5 IER
also referenced DOEs prior statement that compact-size clothes dryers provide utility to consumers by allowing for installation in spaceconstrained environments. IER, No.
138 at p. 5 citing 76 FR 22454, 22485
April 21, 2011 IER asserted that this statement indicates that the utility to the consumers was not merely heated air to dry clothing, but also installation considerations. Id. IER also cited the establishment of separate product classes for package terminal air conditioners PTACs, which address size constraints that allow for replacement units to be installed in existing wall sleeves. Id.
In their comments, AGA et al. drew an analogy between electric clothes dryers and non-condensing gas-fired appliances. Noting that electric clothes dryers have the benefit of fitting into consumers apartment buildings without the need for remodeling or loss of living space, the commenter argued that such dryers provide an important utility and, accordingly, constitute a performancerelated feature. AGA et al., No. 135 at pp. 26 Similarly, AGA et al. reasoned that natural gas appliances that function with existing chimneys and plumbing designed to accommodate noncondensing appliances likewise serve an important utility and constitute a performance-related feature. Id. at pp.
2627 AGA et al. went on to comment that the constraints that amounted to a performance-related feature for other appliances are too similar to the space and functional constraints of furnaces, water heaters, and boilers for that latter group of appliances not to be accorded similar treatment as performance-related features under the statute. Id. at p. 27
AGA et al. further commented that when the Department reevaluated the standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps and packaged terminal air conditioners, the Department
PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

recognized separate classes of space constrained and non-standard sized units that differed from standard air conditioners because of their performance-related feature: their ability to accommodate the space constraints of many homes and apartments. Id. at p.
24 According to the commenter, the Department cannot consider space and functional constraints a performancerelated feature justifying separate standards for those products, but deny equal treatment to those furnaces, water heaters, and boilers facing similar constraints. Id. at p. 27 AGA et al.
opined that an appliance provides a consumer limited or no utility if it can only be used after renovating their home or business. Id. at p. 26
AGA et al. and AHRI further submitted that the furnace fans rulemaking is also relevant precedent in support of a requirement for the establishment of separate product classes, given that DOE recognized that condensing and non-condensing furnaces present significant design differences that warrant different product classes for furnace fans in that proceeding. As the commenters point out, use of condensing versus noncondensing technology was one of the distinguishing factors in the furnace fans product classes adopted by DOE.
AGA et al., No. 135 at pp. 2526; AHRI, No. 139 at pp. 34
In response to these comments, DOE
does not find any tension or inconsistency between its prior application of the features provision and the interpretation adopted in this document i.e., the technology used to supply heated air or hot water and the associated venting is not a performance-related feature that provides a distinct consumer utility.
The present case of non-condensing gasfired residential furnaces and commercial water heaters is distinguishable from certain other products cited by commenters i.e., ventless and compact clothes dryers, space-constrained central air conditioners, and furnace fans for the reasons that follow.
Regarding ventless clothes dryers, DOE recognizes that there may be some parallels between those appliances and the noncondensing furnaces and water heaters at issue here particularly regarding problematic installation situations, but the Department would once again clarify that the circumstances surrounding these two sets of appliances are distinguishable.
Those different circumstances lead to different results when DOE is interpreting EPCAs features provision. Stated simply, DOE found
E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1