Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

73958

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 29, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
location of operation of a PTAC directly influences the size of the equipment, which impacts the size of the heat exchanger and has a corresponding direct effect on the energy efficiency of the equipment. Id. DOE acknowledged the potentially high costs that would be associated with installing a nonstandard sized PTAC in an existing building due to the need to increase the wall opening i.e., the wall sleeve in which a replacement PTAC is installed.
Id. As explained in a subsequent rulemaking for PTACs, DOE further clarified that it accounts for installation costs in the life-cycle cost LCC and payback period PBP analyses used to evaluate increased standard levels, which is a separate and distinct consideration from whether separate product classes are justified. 80 FR
43162, 43167 July 21, 2015.
Consideration of installation costs in the LCC and PBP analysis used for evaluating an increased energy conservation standard level is consistent with the application of 42 U.S.C.
6295o4 and 42 U.S.C. 6295q1 in the final interpretation adopted in this document.
The furnace fan product classes also are not an analogous comparison to residential furnaces and commercial water heaters that rely on noncondensing technology. Furnace fans are electrically-powered devices used in consumer products for the purpose of circulating air through ductwork. 10
CFR 430.2. A furnace fan operates to allow the furnace in which it is installed to function. The references to condensing and non-condensing in the furnace fan product classes do not reflect a difference in utility between condensing and non-condensing furnaces, but rather reflect the differences between the operation of a furnace fan installed in a condensing furnace as compared to a furnace fan installed in a non-condensing furnace.
In establishing the energy conservation standards for furnace fans, DOE
differentiated between furnace fan product classes based on internal structure and application-specific design differences that impact furnace fan energy consumption. 79 FR 38130, 38142 July 3, 2014. The internal structures encountered differ for a furnace fan installed in a condensing furnace, as compared to a furnace fan installed in a non-condensing furnace.
The presence of an evaporator coil or secondary heat exchanger, as in a condensing furnace, significantly impacts the internal structure of an HVAC product, and in turn, the energy performance of the furnace fan
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:59 Dec 28, 2021

Jkt 256001

integrated in that HVAC product. Id.
These differences result in different energy use profiles for furnace fans installed in condensing furnaces, as compared to furnace fans installed in non-condensing furnace, which justifies the separate product classes.
For the reasons presented in the August 2021 NOPIR and the preceding paragraphs, DOE has determined that its historical interpretationthat utility is properly determined through an assessment of the benefits and usefulness that the feature provides to the consumer while interacting with the productis the better reading of EPCA.
The differences in cost or complexity of installation between products/
equipment with different heat exchanger technology i.e., noncondensing or condensing and associated venting do not constitute a performance-related feature under 42
U.S.C. 6295o4, as would justify separating the products/equipment into different product/equipment classes under 42 U.S.C. 6295q1. As discussed in the following section, this approach is consistent with EPCAs requirement for a separate and extensive analysis of economic justification for the adoption of any new or amended energy conservation standard see 42 U.S.C.
6295o23; 42 U.S.C. 6313a6A
C; 42 U.S.C. 6316a.
B. Cost and Installation Considerations The Department acknowledges that, in its January 2021 Final Interpretative Rule, it extended its view of consumer utility of residential furnaces and commercial water heaters beyond those appliances primary function of providing heated air or water, giving considerable weight to installation situations that could require the addition of new pipes or venting to the usable space of a home or business, major modifications to a utility room, or encroachment upon an existing window or patio. 86 FR 4776, 4786 Jan. 15, 2021.
However, differences in cost or complexity of installation between different methods of venting e.g., category IV venting for a condensing furnace versus category I venting for a non-condensing furnace do not make any method of venting a performancerelated feature under 42 U.S.C.
6295o4, as would justify separating the products/equipment into different product/equipment classes under 42
U.S.C. 6295q1. DOE has come to see the issues underlying the January 2021
Final Interpretive Rule more appropriately framed as matters of cost.
This view is consistent with EPCAs requirement for a separate and extensive
PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

analysis of economic justification for the adoption of any new or amended energy conservation standard see 42 U.S.C.
6295o23; 42 U.S.C. 6313a6A
C; 42 U.S.C. 6316a. DOE stated in the August 2021 NOPIR that the proposed interpretation would return the issues underlying the January 2021
Final Interpretive Rule to their proper sphere as part of DOEs economic analysis in individual energy conservation standards rulemakings. 86
FR 48049, 48053 August 27, 2021.
Once again, commenters had mixed views on the change in position outlined in the August 2021 NOPIR, with some in favor and others opposed to DOEs proposed modified approach.
Among those in favor, ASAP et al.
stated that that non-condensing technology and associated venting does not provide unique utility to consumers separate from an appliances function of providing heated air or water and that the cost impacts are appropriately considered in the context of individual rulemakings, which can consider the specific circumstances of each product. ASAP et al., No. 143 at p. 2
The Institute for Policy Integrity commented that in making a feature determination, DOE should consider consumer utility as separate from any cost considerations, any technological advances that could resolve the current challenges, and any benefits of fuel switching. Institute for Policy Integrity, No. 145 at p. 1 CEC commented that the features provision makes no mention of cost as a relevant consideration and that such factors are properly considered during the evaluation of a proposed standard levels economic justification. CEC, No. 134 at p. 3
NRDC et al. commented that, while condensing technologies may require additional installation costs, there are alternatives that can make condensing technologies work within the existing space. NRDC added that it would be more appropriate to incorporate increased installation costs associated with condensing technologies in the life cycle cost and payback period analyses in energy conservation standards rulemakings. NRDC et al., No. 144 at pp. 12
The State Attorneys General commented that any differences in cost or complexity of installation between different methods of venting for condensing and non-condensing products are more properly considered as part of the DOEs economic analysis in individual energy conservation standards rulemakings. State Attorneys General, No. 136 at p. 3 These commenters stated that any potential
E:FRFM29DER1.SGM

29DER1