Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Consumer Warm Air Furnaces; Final Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 52422-52429 [2021-19813]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
52422
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—U.S. MILK PRODUCTION BY REGION AND PROPOSED NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS
Milk
production
(mil. lbs.)
Proposed regions and states
Percentage
of total milk
production
Proposed
number of
board seats
1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington ...................................................................................................
2. California, Hawaii .....................................................................................................................
3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming ..........................................................
4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ...............................................................
5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ................................................................................
6. Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................
7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska ............................................................................................
8. Idaho ........................................................................................................................................
9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia ...................................................................................
10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia ..................................................
11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania ..................................................................
12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
9,378.2
40,565.9
13,005.6
26,654.0
13,067.0
30,601.0
9,548.0
15,631.0
20,973.0
4.3
18.6
6.0
12.2
6.0
14.0
4.4
7.2
9.6
2
7
2
4
2
5
2
3
3
8,528.0
11,121.7
19,308.6
3.9
5.1
8.8
1
2
3
Total: .....................................................................................................................................
218,382.0
100
36
Source: USDA NASS Milk Production, Disposition, and Income 2019 Summary.
The Dairy Board unanimously
approved the proposal to change the
number of seats in two of the 12
geographic regions. AMS independently
reviewed the Dairy Board’s
reapportionment proposal and
concluded that data from USDA’s NASS
Milk Production, Disposition, and
Income 2019 Summary supports the
proposed changes. During AMS’s
independent analysis, AMS also
determined that the Dairy Board
fulfilled the Dairy Order’s requirement
to conduct an evaluation and
recommended changes to the Secretary
in order to best reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production volume
in the United States. Therefore, after
AMS’s evaluation of the Dairy
reapportionment proposal, AMS agrees
that the proposed membership change
would better reflect the geographic
distribution of milk production volume
in the United States. A 30-day comment
period is provided for interested
persons to comment on this proposed
rule.
§ 1150.131 Establishment and
membership.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1150
[EERE–2018–BT–PET–0017]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR
part 1150 continues to read as follows:
2. In § 1150.131, revise paragraphs
(b)(8) and (10) to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
[FR Doc. 2021–20379 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final denial of petition for
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
PART 1150—DAIRY PROMOTION
PROGRAM
■
Erin Morris,
Associate Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service.
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Consumer Warm Air
Furnaces; Final Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7
CFR part 1150 as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4501–4514 and 7
U.S.C. 7401
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(8) Three members from region
number eight comprised of the
following State: Idaho.
*
*
*
*
*
(10) One member from region number
ten comprised of the following States:
Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.
*
*
*
*
*
RIN 1904–AE37
Dairy Products, Milk, Promotion,
Research.
■
*
This document announces
and provides the reasoning for the U.S.
Department of Energy’s final denial of a
petition filed by the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requesting that DOE initiate a noticeand-comment rulemaking to develop a
new combined test procedure for
consumer furnaces and furnace fans,
which would replace the two currently
required performance metrics for
furnaces and the one performance
metric for furnace fans with a single
new metric called ‘‘AFUE2.’’
DATES: This final denial of petition for
rulemaking is applicable September 21,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The petition and comments
filed in accordance with the timelines
set forth in the prior Federal Register
notice have been entered into docket
number EERE–2018–BT–PET–0017. The
docket is available for review at
www.regulations.gov. For further
information on how to review the
docket, contact the Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program staff at
(202) 287–1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email: ApplianceStandards
Questions@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0103.
Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition for
Rulemaking
II. Background and Authority
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
III. AHRI’s Petition for Rulemaking Summary
and Comments
IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion
V. Denial of Petition
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition
for Rulemaking
This document denies a petition
received by the U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) requesting that DOE
initiate a rulemaking to develop a new
combined test procedure addressing
covered consumer furnaces and furnace
fans, which would replace the two
currently required performance metrics
for furnaces (i.e., annual fuel utilization
efficiency (‘‘AFUE’’) and standby mode/
off mode energy consumption (PW,SB/
PW,OFF)) and the one performance
metric for furnace fans (i.e., fan
efficiency ratio (‘‘FER’’)) with a single
new metric called ‘‘AFUE2.’’ AHRI
asserted that a single performance
metric would reduce regulatory burden
for furnace manufacturers by
streamlining test requirements and
aligning regulatory review schedules
and promote design flexibility and
product innovation.
DOE has determined that a combined
test procedure and energy conservation
standard for consumer furnaces and
furnace fans would enable an increase
in the maximum allowable energy use
and/or minimum required efficiency of
furnaces and furnace fans, each a
separate covered product. AHRI’s
suggested unified metric would allow
for trade-offs in energy use between the
two separately regulated modes of
furnace operation (i.e., active mode and
standby mode/off mode) and furnaces
fans. These tradeoffs in turn have the
potential to allow for furnaces to
consume more energy in active mode or
standby mode/off mode than permitted
under the active mode and standby/off
mode standards, or for furnace fans to
consume more energy than permitted
under the current furnace fan standard.
This is impermissible under the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 which prevents
the Secretary from prescribing any
amended standard that either increases
the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy
efficiency of a covered product. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) DOE has also
determined that a unified metric for
consumer furnaces and furnace fans
(using the proposed combined metric
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
AFUE2) would be contrary to DOE’s
prior determination that it is
technologically infeasible to integrate
active mode and standby or off mode
energy use for furnaces.
Therefore, after carefully considering
AHRI’s request, supporting materials
accompanying the request, and
submitted comments, DOE is declining
to grant AHRI’s request for the reasons
set forth in the following discussion.
II. Background and Authority
EPCA, as amended, among of things,
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer
products and certain industrial
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title
III, Part B 2 of EPCA established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products Other Than
Automobiles, which sets forth a variety
of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency for certain types of
consumer products. These products
include consumer furnaces and furnace
fans, the focus of this document. (42
U.S.C. 6292(a)(5); 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295),
and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must
use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to
DOE that their products comply with
the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making
representations about the efficiency of
that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)).
Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the
product complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE is
required to follow when prescribing or
amending test procedures for covered
products. Specifically, EPCA requires
that any test procedures prescribed or
amended must be reasonably designed
to produce test results which measure
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated as Part A.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52423
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedures
for consumer furnaces and furnace fans
are set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 10 CFR part 430.
More specifically, the test procedure for
furnaces is located at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix N (‘‘Appendix N’’),
Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Furnaces and
Boilers. The test procedure for furnace
fans is located at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart B, appendix AA (‘‘Appendix
AA’’), Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Furnaces Fans.
Relevant to this document, EPCA also
requires DOE to follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered products,
including consumer furnaces and
furnace fans. Any new or amended
standard for a covered product must be
designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that
the Secretary of Energy determines is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1))
Additionally, pursuant to the
amendments to EPCA contained in the
Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–
140, any final rule for new or amended
energy conservation standards
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is
required to address standby mode and
off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE
adopts a standard for a covered product
after that date, it must, if justified by the
criteria for adoption of standards under
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate
standby mode and off mode energy use
into a single standard, or, if that is not
feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B))
DOE has established energy
conservation standards for furnace
energy efficiency using the AFUE
metric, which is the ratio of annual
output energy to annual input energy.
10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii). DOE also
separately established energy
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
52424
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
conservation standards for furnace
standby mode and off mode electrical
power consumption, PW,SB and PW,OFF,
respectively, which account for all
furnace electrical consumption in
standby and off modes. 10 CFR
430.32(e)(1)(iii). DOE has established an
energy conservation standard for
furnace fans using the FER metric,
which is the ratio of the electrical
energy consumption to airflow in watts
per cubic feet per minute (CFM). 10 CFR
430.32(y). The FER metric measures
performance during active mode when
the fan is circulating air, but it does not
include provisions for measuring
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption of furnace fans (although
appendix AA includes a section
reserved for future provisions to address
standby mode and off mode energy use,
if necessary). Instead, the standby mode
and off mode energy consumption for
furnace fans is addressed by the test
procedures and metrics for consumer
furnaces and residential central air
conditioners and heat pumps, as these
products operate in conjunction with
furnace fans. See 78 FR 19606, 19619
(April 2, 2013).
The Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides
among other things, 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))
III. AHRI’s Petition for Rulemaking
Summary and Comments
On October 12, 2018, DOE received a
petition from AHRI (‘‘AHRI Petition’’)
asking DOE to initiate notice-andcomment rulemaking to develop a new
test procedure for residential furnaces
and furnace fans which would replace
the two currently required performance
metrics for furnaces (i.e., AFUE and
PW,SB/PW,OFF) and the one performance
metric for furnace fans (i.e., FER) with
a single new metric (i.e., AFUE2).3 On
November 14, 2018, DOE published a
Notice of Petition for Rulemaking
(‘‘2018 Notice of Petition for
Rulemaking’’) announcing the receipt of
the AHRI Petition and inviting
interested parties to submit comments.
83 FR 56746.
In the petition, AHRI suggested
AFUE2 metric would account for
furnace fuel, fan power, and standby
mode and off mode power consumption,
and the measured value would
represent the sum of usable heat and fan
benefit, divided by the total fuel and
electricity consumed. (AHRI, No. 2 at p.
2) 4 AHRI asserted that transitioning to
a single metric, such as AFUE2, would
reduce regulatory burden on
manufacturers by streamlining test
requirements and aligning regulatory
review schedules, thereby promoting
design flexibility and product
innovation. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 4–5) The
petitioner further asserted that
consumers would also benefit by having
a single, combined metric for product
comparison purposes and by receiving
some portion of anticipated cost
savings, all of which could be achieved
without sacrificing energy savings.
(AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 5–6) The petition
acknowledges that a combined metric
would necessitate a translation of the
existing energy conservation standards
applicable to residential furnaces and
furnace fans. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 6–7)
Additionally, in a separate letter to DOE
dated November 2, 2018, AHRI
requested that DOE not enforce the
reporting, certification and compliance
obligations related to the furnace fan
energy conservation standards pending
consideration of their petition for
rulemaking.5 (AHRI, No. 3 at pp. 1–2)
In the 2018 Notice of Petition for
Rulemaking, DOE invited interested
parties to submit comments regarding
the petition. 83 FR 56746, 56746 (Nov.
14, 2018). DOE received comments in
response to the 2018 Notification of
Petition for Rulemaking from the
interested parties listed in Table II–1.6
In the following discussion, DOE
addresses the relevant comments.
TABLE II–1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO 2018 NOTIFICATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Air-Conditioning Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...........................................................
Alliance to Save Energy .......................................................................................................
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
California Energy Commission .............................................................................................
Carrier Corporation ...............................................................................................................
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection .....................................
Consumer Federation of America and National Consumer Law Center .............................
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club ..........................................................................................
AHRI .........................
ASE ...........................
Joint Commenters .....
Trade Association.
Efficiency Organizations.
Efficiency Organizations.
CEC ..........................
Carrier .......................
CT DEEP ..................
Consumer Groups ....
Earthjustice and the
Sierra Club.
Ingersoll Rand ...........
Lennox ......................
A.O. Smith ................
NEMA ........................
National Grid .............
NRDC ........................
NYSERDA .................
NEEP ........................
NEEA ........................
NPCC ........................
State Agency.
Manufacturer.
State Agency.
Consumer Organizations.
Efficiency Organizations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Ingersoll Rand ......................................................................................................................
Lennox International .............................................................................................................
Lochinvar/A.O. Smith Corporation ........................................................................................
National Electric Manufacturers Association ........................................................................
National Grid .........................................................................................................................
Natural Resources Defense Council ....................................................................................
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ..........................................
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership .............................................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ...................................................................................
Northwest Power and Conservation Council .......................................................................
3 The AHRI Petition is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BTPET-0017-0002. The petition did not identify any of
the information contained therein as confidential
business information.
4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket for the
petition for rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2018–
BT–PET–0017, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID
number, page of that document).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
5 On November 2, 2018, DOE issued an
enforcement policy stating that it would not enforce
the testing, certification, and standards
requirements for furnace fans while DOE
considered the 2018 Petition for Rulemaking. In
response to the policy statement DOE received
comments from a wide variety of parties as well as
a letter from AHRI requesting that DOE rescind the
enforcement policy. On February 11, 2019, DOE
rescinded the November 2, 2018 policy statement.
The request that DOE not enforce the furnace fan
energy conservation pending consideration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commenter type
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Trade Association.
Utilities.
Efficiency Organizations.
State Agency.
Efficiency Organizations.
Efficiency Organizations.
Utilities.
petition for rulemaking is not considered further in
this document. The policy statement and rescission
are available at www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/
furnace-fan-enforcement-policy.
6 Stakeholders’ comments can be accessed in the
docket at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018BT-PET-0017. DOE also received several nonsubstantive comments or comments not relevant to
the petition, which are not included in the table.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
52425
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE II–1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO 2018 NOTIFICATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING—
Continued
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation
Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric
(collectively the California Investor-Owned Utilities).
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors ................................................................................
Regal Beloit America, Inc .....................................................................................................
Rheem Manufacturing Company ..........................................................................................
CA IOUs ....................
Utilities.
PHCC ........................
Regal Beloit ..............
Rheem ......................
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
In general overview, furnace
manufacturers supported the AHRI
petition, stating that a combined metric
would lead to benefits for both
manufacturers and/or consumers.
(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 1–5; Carrier, No.
33 at pp. 1, 3–4; Rheem, No. 45 at pp.
1–2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) More
specifically, manufacturers referenced
the fact that there are currently three
different energy conservation standards
(and three different test procedures)
related to consumer furnace efficiency
(i.e., AFUE, FER, and standby mode/off
mode power consumption) and that
each of these regulations is subject to
separate regulatory review schedules.
(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–4; Rheem, No.
45 at pp. 1–2) Lennox further stated that
having so many separate regulatory
schedules places manufacturers,
distributors, contractors, and DOE in a
constant state of change and adjustment.
Lennox stated that every time DOE
amends standards, manufacturers must
redesign equipment, make capital
investments to update manufacturing
facilities, republish marketing literature,
and educate distributors, contractors,
and consumers about the changes.
Lennox also asserted that the costs
associated with these activities are
ultimately passed on to consumers.
(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–5)
Manufacturers stated that adopting the
AFUE2 metric, consolidating
certification and testing requirements,
and streamlining rulemaking and
redesign cycles could allow for more
effective utilization of manufacturer
resources by reducing this regulatory
burden. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–4;
Carrier, No. 33 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 45
at p. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1)
Manufacturers also generally asserted
that the simplified ratings could reduce
design constraints or otherwise increase
opportunities for innovation. (Carrier,
No. 33 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2;
Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) Lennox
suggested that setting requirements for
individual furnace components restricts
design choices between various aspects
of a residential furnace. Lennox stated
that the AFUE2 test method would
promote innovation by enabling
manufacturers to develop the most
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
effective solution for overall product
efficiency at the lowest cost. (Lennox,
No. 34 at p. 5) In its petition, AHRI
estimated that the total reduction in
regulatory burden resulting from
implementation of AFUE2 would save
manufacturers more than $250 million
over thirty years. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 4) 7
Manufacturers also stated that a
combined metric would make it easier
for consumers to compare the overall
efficiencies of furnace models. (Carrier,
No. 33 at pp. 3–4; Lennox, No. 34 at pp.
3, 4) More specifically, Lennox
suggested that consumers (and selling
contractors) often do not understand
that the energy consumption associated
with the FER metric generally is less
than 5 percent of the total energy
consumed in the operation of a product,
or that standby mode represents a
miniscule amount of energy use
compared to the amount of energy used
to create heat via combustion. (Lennox,
No. 34 at p. 3)
Lennox also commented that the
AFUE2 metric would also have the
benefit of reducing the need for
government intervention and saving
government resources by reducing the
quantity of regulations. (Lennox, No. 34
at pp. 2, 5) Finally, several furnace
manufacturers commented that although
a crosswalk has not yet been completed,
further work in this area should
continue and suggested that revised
energy efficiency standards (in terms of
AFUE2) could reflect the overall system
energy efficiency already required by
the AFUE, PWSB and PWOFF, and FER
metrics. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1;
Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 34
at pp. 2, 4)
In contrast, efficiency organizations,
State agencies, and utilities generally
opposed the petition, asserting that the
combined metric would obscure the
efficiencies of separately regulated
elements (which often use different
energy sources) and could potentially
lead to backsliding. These commenters
also asserted that a combined metric
7 AHRI’s calculations of burden reduction are
included in Exhibit 3, which was submitted with
the original petition and can be found at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTPET-0017-0002.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Commenter type
could reduce the amount of future
energy savings potential. (NEEA, No. 35
at pp. 1, 4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at
pp. 1–3; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 1–6;
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 31
at pp. 1, 3–4; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 1, 4–
5; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1–2; CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1–4; NEEP, No. 36
at p. 1; CT DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1; NEMA,
No. 26 at pp. 5–8)
Consumer Groups stated that AHRI’s
petition relies on the assumption that a
crosswalk can be generated to translate
the three current standards to a single
standard that relies on AFUE2 without:
(a) Diminishing the energy savings that
would otherwise be achieved, (b)
harming consumers, or (c) violating
EPCA. These commenters stated that it
is unproven that such a crosswalk is
possible and further argued that such
approach would not be permissible
under EPCA. (Consumer Groups, No. 31
at pp. 2–4)
The Joint Commenters stated that
AHRI’s requested change to the test
procedures (and subsequent changes to
the energy conservation standards), if
adopted by DOE, would violate the
specific directive from EPCA that
requires DOE to set air circulation
efficiency standards; illegally combine
the required air circulation standard
with a standards based on fuel use;
improperly apply the EPCA provision
regarding adjustment to standards based
on test procedure changes to an
amendment merging standards; 8 and
adopt an approach for standby mode
and off mode power consumption that
DOE has previously found is not
technically feasible. (Joint Commenters,
No. 42 at p. 7) Earthjustice and the
Sierra Club and NRDC similarly stated
8 DOE understands the Joint Commenters to be
referencing 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), which provides that
in the case of any amended test procedure, the
Secretary shall determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency, measured energy use, or
measured water use of any covered product as
determined under the existing test procedure and
that if the Secretary determines that the amended
test procedure will alter the measured efficiency or
measured use, the Secretary shall amend the
applicable energy conservation standard as
prescribed by certain provisions specified in 42
U.S.C. 6293(e) during the rulemaking carried out
with respect to such test procedure.
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52426
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
that DOE does not have authority under
EPCA to crosswalk and combine
multiple metrics into a single combined
metric, or the authority to combine the
standby mode and off mode power
consumption metrics with active mode
energy consumption for furnaces.
(Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41
at pp. 4–6; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 3–6)
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club also
stated that DOE does not have authority
under EPCA to combine the electrical
energy consumption of furnace fans into
the fuel efficiency standards for
furnaces. (Earthjustice and the Sierra
Club, No. 41 at pp. 2–3) Consumer
Groups stated that AHRI’s position that
42 U.S.C. 6293(e) provides the authority
for DOE to develop an AFUE2 standard
to replace the three current standards is
in error because AHRI is not proposing
to amend an existing test procedure
(which is what 42 U.S.C. 6293(e)
addresses), but rather to eliminate
existing test procedures and replace
them with an entirely new test
procedure and associated standards.
(Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 6)
Multiple commenters also asserted
that under the combined metric, lessefficient furnace fans could be used and
that this would reduce the potential for
future energy savings or enable the use
of less-efficient furnace fans than are
currently allowed. (NEEP, No. 36 at p.
1; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 3–4; CT DEEP, No.
46 at p. 1; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1–
2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1–4; NEMA, No. 26
at pp. 5–8; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at pp.
3–4; NPCC, No. 29 at p. 2; Joint
Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2–3, 7;
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41
at pp. 3–4)
Regal Beloit commented that the
AFUE2 test procedure could potentially
result in an increase in the maximum
allowable energy use from furnace fans
because the AFUE2 test procedure
would change certain definitions and/or
values of certain variables that could
lead to an increase in the maximum
allowable energy use of furnace fans.
(Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) NEEP and
CT DEEP commented that combining
efficiency standards could present new
challenges for energy efficiency efforts
that use Federal standards in their
calculations. (NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1; CT
DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1)
PHCC supported the effort to
consolidate metrics and streamline the
regulatory process (which it asserted
would lead to reduced costs for
consumers), but also expressed concerns
that the proposal should undergo
further review to ensure that no
backsliding could occur. (PHCC, No. 32
at pp. 1–2) NEMA supported the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
initiative to reduce regulatory burden by
consolidating the three existing test
procedures into a single metric for
furnaces, but expressed concerns that
the proposal outlined in the AHRI
Petition would not comply with
statutory requirements set forth in EPCA
(specifically referencing the antibacksliding provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1)). NEMA encouraged DOE to
deny AHRI’s petition but encouraged
AHRI to reformulate its proposed metric
to ensure compliance with EPCA.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 2–8)
Several commenters expressed
concern that the AFUE2 metric could
confuse, mislead, or otherwise
negatively impact consumers by
masking the operating costs of different
elements and products (with different
energy sources), or lead to increased
consumer costs. (NEEA, No. 35 at pp. 1–
4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 1, 4,
8; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 2, 8; NYSERDA,
No. 30 at pp. 1–2; National Grid, No. 28
at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5–6;
Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 3; Regal
Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 4–5) Similarly, ASE
commented that the use of site-energy
equivalents (rather than primary energy
or average energy costs) to combine
electricity and natural gas consumption
into a single metric could lead to
backsliding and could significantly
misrepresent the relative energy
operating costs to homeowners and
consumers. (ASE, No. 40 at p. 2)
NYSERDA stated that AFUE2 would
incentivize manufacturers to optimize
their designs to reduce site energy use,
rather than consumer costs or total
energy use. (NYSERDA, No. 30 at p. 2)
National Grid and the CA IOUs stated
that combining fuel sources into one
metric creates confusion for utilities
when estimating fuel savings associated
with different products, which could
make it difficult to develop incentive
programs. (National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1;
CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5–6) The CA
IOUs suggested that a shift to AFUE2
would result in higher peak loads for
electric utilities (which these
commenters argued could in turn lead
to higher utility bills for customers)
because the saturation of efficient
furnace fans and low standby loss units
will decrease (as fan/electrical
efficiency has a very limited impact on
AFUE2 ratings). (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp.
7–8) Regal Beloit added that
maintaining the FER metric would
protect consumer choice by driving the
use of high-efficiency motors in all
furnace types. (Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p.
4)
Regarding manufacturer burden, the
Joint Commenters suggested that
moving forward with the AFUE2 metric
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
could undermine regulatory
predictability because it would strand
the investments that furnace fan
component manufacturers and furnace
manufacturers have already made
towards FER compliance. (Joint
Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 6–7) NEEP
asserted that the AFUE2 petition and
enforcement policy would create
regulatory uncertainty and undue
hardship for motor manufacturers,
retailers, distributors, and customers
who are unclear about which furnaces
will be compliant with the new
standards. (NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1) NEEA
and the Joint Commenters also
suggested that AHRI’s proposal would
be damaging to manufacturers and their
component and assembly suppliers,
who have already invested in the design
and production of products that meet
the most recent efficiency standards.
(NEEA, No. 35 at p. 3; Joint
Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 6–7) The
CA IOUs also commented that there is
no need for ‘‘trade-offs’’ between
furnace fan and furnace efficiency,
asserting that DOE has shown efficiency
improvements to each rating to be costeffective on their own. (CA IOUs, No. 27
at p. 7)
Consumer Groups remarked that
while reductions in regulatory burden
in the abstract are desirable, nothing in
EPCA establishes ‘‘reducing regulatory
burden’’ as a statutory goal, and
according to these commenters, the
contents of the AHRI petition violate
explicit provisions of that statutory
scheme. Specifically, the Consumer
Groups provided several citations,
which they argue require DOE to adopt
and enforce standards for furnaces,
including 42 U.S.C. 6291(23) (defining
‘‘furnace’’), 42 U.S.C. 6291(22) (setting
‘‘annual fuel utilization efficiency’’ as
the ‘‘efficiency descriptor’’ for
‘‘furnaces’’), 42 U.S.C 6295(f)(1) (setting
initial AFUE standards for furnaces), 42
U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) (directing DOE to
set standards for furnace fans), and 42
U.S.C. 6295(gg) (directing DOE to set
standards for furnace standby mode and
off mode energy use). (Consumer
Groups, No. 31 at pp. 2–4)
NEEA disagreed with AHRI’s claim
that innovation would increase as a
result of adoption the AFUE2 metric
and suggested that innovation would
actually decrease because manufacturers
often improve product features
unrelated to efficiency at the same time
that they redesign products to meet new
energy efficiency requirements. (NEEA,
No. 35 at p. 2) Similarly, the Joint
Commenters commented that AFUE2
would allow manufacturers to avoid
innovating air movement designs and
suggested that increases in standards
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
drive innovation. (Joint Commenters,
No. 42 at p. 9)
The Joint Commenters argued that
AHRI’s claim of manufacturer cost
savings is overstated and appears to
result from the assumption that furnace
fan and standby mode and off mode
efficiency improvements would not be
required, which the commenters argued
is not realistic since future standards
must maximize technologically feasible
and economically justified efficiency
improvements. These commenters also
argued that the assumption by AHRI
that all future standards will have the
same conversion costs as the first
standard is similarly unrealistic,
because future increases to the furnace
fan standards will not be as far-reaching
as the initial standards. (Joint
Commenters, No. 42 at p. 7)
Several commenters, including
manufacturers, utilities, and efficiency
organizations, did come together in
support of aligning future rulemakings
or compliance timelines (including
AFUE, FER, and PWSB and PWOFF test
procedures and standards) to reduce
manufacturer burden. (Lennox, No. 34
at pp. 2, 5–6; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p.
1; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 7;
CEC, No. 38 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 27
at pp. 8–9; Consumer Groups, No. 31 at
p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; NEEA, No.
35 at p. 2) Lennox opined that EPCA
(specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B))
precludes DOE from imposing AFUE
and FER standards in an uncoordinated
manner within a six-year period.
(Lennox, No. 34 at p. 6)
Several commenters stated that the
AFUE2 metric was developed without
significant or open stakeholder input
and/or argued that further review would
be required before it could be adopted.
(NEEP, No. 36 at pp. 1–2; CT DEEP, No.
46 at pp. 1–2; NYSERDA, No. 30 at p.
2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; Regal
Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) Along these lines,
ASE suggested that a single metric is
logical and intuitive for consumers and
could be investigated in a future
rulemaking to determine whether a
single metric for furnaces is feasible,
capable of facilitating increased
efficiency, and in the best interests of
homeowners and consumers. However,
ASE also suggested that DOE should
conduct a thorough analysis of the
possibility of a new test procedure for
the next energy conservation standard
for furnaces to avoid the need for a
crosswalk and prevent the possibility of
backsliding. (ASE, No. 40 at p. 2)
Similarly, NPCC supported the concept
of a single metric because it could be a
simpler metric for consumers, could
reduce the number of test procedures
and energy conservation standards
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
rulemakings for DOE and industry, and
could permit more flexible innovation
by manufacturers. However, NPCC
opposed the petition as written,
asserting that the specific AFUE2
approach in the petition would likely
reduce or eliminate the impact of the
furnace fan standards. (NPCC, No. 29 at
p. 2)
NRDC and the CA IOUs specifically
opposed the AFUE2 test procedure’s
move to eliminate cyclic testing,
asserting that this would remove the
incentives for manufacturers to reduce
cycling losses. (NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 6–
7; CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 9) NRDC also
asserted that elimination of cyclic
testing in the requested test procedure
and its modification of the assumed
operating hours that go into calculating
AFUE are attempts to reopen issues that
have already been publicly discussed
and decided by DOE. (NRDC, No. 39 at
pp. 6–7)
NEMA recommended that in any
future standard based on AFUE2, DOE
should require that the portion of the
AFUE2 metric that accounts for furnace
electrical consumption be as stringent or
more stringent than the currently
established FER standards. NEMA
stated that this approach would require
the differences in AHRI’s proposed
AFUE2 formula and DOE’s FER formula
(e.g., use of different operating hours) to
be reconciled. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 6–
8) A.O. Smith commented that the
AFUE2 metric should not be applied to
boilers based on the commenter’s
understanding of the scope of the
petitioners’ request and the product
distinctions between a forced-air
furnace and consumer boiler. A.O.
Smith expressed concerns with several
aspects of the AFUE2 metric including:
(1) Inclusion of source-based power
generation differences between gas and
electricity in the metric; (2) the
technical feasibility of integrating
standby mode and off mode
consumption with fossil-fuel
consumption for consumer boilers; and
(3) the absence of an affirmative
indicator of intent to include consumer
boilers in the AFUE2 metric. (A.O.
Smith, No. 44 at pp. 1–2)
As explained in the following section,
DOE carefully considered the relevant
comments received in evaluating
whether to initiate a rulemaking to
propose adoption of the AFUE2 metric
as requested by AHRI in its petition for
rulemaking. DOE’s response to these
comments and its decision on the AHRI
Petition are discussed in the balance of
this document.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52427
IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion
DOE first considered whether EPCA
provides authority to adopt a single
metric for furnaces and furnace fans, as
requested by AHRI in their Petition for
Rulemaking. As discussed, EPCA
requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended must be
reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency
or energy use of a covered product
during a representative average use
cycle or period of use, as determined by
the Secretary, and shall not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(3)) While the AHRI petition
suggests that standards relying on
AFUE2 could be established through a
‘‘crosswalk’’ as part of the test
procedure rulemaking under 42 U.S.C.
6293(e), that provision does not affect
the Secretary’s obligation to issue final
rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. (42
U.S.C. 6293(e)(4)) Among the
obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295, EPCA
requires that any new or amended
energy conservation standard prescribed
by the Secretary for any type (or class)
of covered product must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in
energy efficiency, which the Secretary
determines is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE must also generally
incorporate standby mode and off mode
energy use into a single standard, or, if
that is not feasible, adopt a separate
standard for such energy use for that
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B))
Also as discussed, EPCA contains what
is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’
provision, which prevents the Secretary
from prescribing any amended standard
that either increases the maximum
allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of
a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1))
In the past, DOE has determined
furnaces and furnace fans to be separate
covered products, each subject to the
relevant test procedure and energy
conservation standard provisions under
EPCA. 79 FR 38130, 38175 (July 3,
2014). EPCA explicitly includes
furnaces in the list of covered products.
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5)) Subject to certain
criteria and conditions, EPCA requires
DOE to consider and establish energy
conservation standards for ‘‘electricity
used for purposes of circulating air
through duct work’’ (which DOE has
defined as residential ‘‘furnace fans’’ at
10 CFR 430.2)). (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D))
Accordingly, DOE has established
energy conservation standards at 10 CFR
430.32(y) for furnace fans as covered
products through a final rule published
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52428
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
in the Federal Register on July 3, 2014.
79 FR 38130. Separately, DOE has
established an energy conservation
standard for furnaces governing the
energy efficiency of active mode (10
CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii)) and also
established standards for furnace
standby mode and off mode electrical
power consumption (10 CFR
430.32(e)(1)(iii)).
DOE first evaluated whether it would
be possible to establish a standard in
terms of AFUE2 without increasing the
maximum allowable energy use or
decreasing the minimum required
efficiency of furnaces (excluding during
standby mode and off mode operation)
and/or furnace fans (i.e., whether a
standard could be prescribed in terms of
AFUE2 without violating EPCA’s antibacksliding provision).
A combined metric (i.e., AFUE2) for
furnaces and furnace fans would reflect
the total energy consumption from both
the furnace and furnace fan. In its
petition, AHRI described the concept of
the AFUE2 metric as follows: ‘‘The
AFUE2 metric accounts for furnace fuel,
fan power, and stand-by and off-mode
power consumption. The measured
value represents the sum of usable heat
and fan benefit, divided by the total fuel
and electricity consumed.’’ (AHRI, No. 2
at p. 2) As a result of combining the
various metrics into a single metric,
manufacturers would be able to make
tradeoffs between the efficiencies of the
various covered products (e.g., using a
less-efficient fan while improving the
efficiency of fuel consumption), which
could lead to the efficiencies of either
covered product (i.e., either the furnace
or furnace fan) decreasing below the
currently applicable energy
conservation standard.
As an example, if a single energy
conservation standard were established
for furnaces and furnace fans using the
AFUE2 metric that is of equivalent
stringency to the current minimum
AFUE and maximum standby mode and
off mode power consumption levels
required for furnaces, and the maximum
FER levels allowed for furnace fans,
then a furnace paired with a highly
efficient furnace fan could potentially
have a fuel consumption efficiency (i.e.,
AFUE) less than what is currently
required under the AFUE standards
(e.g., less than 80 percent AFUE for nonweatherized gas furnaces), resulting in
backsliding for the furnace efficiency as
compared to the existing AFUE
standard. Similarly, an AFUE2 standard
could be met by pairing a furnace with
a high AFUE (e.g., over 90 percent) with
an inefficient furnace fan that that
would not separately meet the existing
FER requirement. Furnaces with high
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
AFUE ratings could also potentially
meet AFUE2 standards despite having
standby mode and/or off mode power
consumption that are not compliant
with current requirements.
The CA IOUs provided test data for
two units tested to the AFUE, FER, and
AFUE2 test procedures that illustrated
the risk of backsliding. The two units
tested were both non-weatherized gas
furnaces, and both had 80-percent
AFUE ratings, input capacities of 60,000
Btu/h, and maximum blower rated
airflows of 1,200 CFM. One unit
(referred to as unit under test (‘‘UUT’’)–
01) had a permanent split capacitor
blower motor and an FER rating of 359
Watts per 1,000 cfm (which is noncompliant with the existing standard for
furnace fans at 10 CFR 430.32(y)). The
other unit (UUT–02) had a blower with
a multi-speed electrically commutated
motor and an FER rating of 233 Watts
per 1,000 cfm (which is compliant with
the existing standard for furnace fans at
10 CFR 430.32(y)). Despite the
significant differences in fan motor
efficiencies, the AFUE2 ratings were
only 1.3 percent different.9 (CA IOUs,
No. 27 at pp. 1–3) These test results
illustrate how efficiency improvements
associated with a high-fuel-efficiency
furnace could offset efficiency decreases
from using a low-efficiency furnace fan
at a given AFUE2 rating (i.e., illustrating
how under a unified metric,
implementing a high-efficiency furnace
technology could enable backsliding of
furnace fan energy efficiency). Thus, if
DOE were to adjust its existing furnaces
energy conservation standards to now
also capture fan energy use, it would
only impact minimally compliant
products and arguably grant an
improper reprieve to products at the
higher end of the efficiency
marketplace. Additionally, as was also
discussed by the CA IOUs, the data
provided by AHRI in its AFUE2 Petition
Exhibit 2 (Example Calculations) 10
suggests that units with a wide range of
FER ratings (including those that are
compliant with the current FER
requirements and those that are not) can
have the same AFUE2 ratings. (CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 3–4) As a result of
these findings, DOE has determined that
adopting a single AFUE2 metric would
violate EPCA’s anti-backsliding
9 The CA IOUs did not measure jacket losses
during testing and used the default value of 1
percent, as is allowed by the furnace test procedure
at Appendix N if a jacket lost test is not conducted.
The CA IOUs also estimated the AFUE2 results with
a jacket loss factor of 0.3 percent, and the difference
in ratings between UUT–01 and UUT–02 in that
case was 1.2 percent.
10 The original data provided by AHRI can be
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2018-BT-PET-0017-0002 as Exhibit 2.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
provisions because it would allow
decreases in the energy efficiency of
individual covered products.
In evaluating the AHRI petition, DOE
also separately sought to determine
whether it would be feasible to integrate
the active mode energy use and standby
mode and off mode power consumption
into an integrated metric. DOE has
previously determined in a final rule
published in the Federal Register that it
is not feasible to establish an energy
conservation standard for furnaces that
integrates electrical standby mode and
off mode energy use. 75 FR 64621,
64623 (Oct. 20, 2010; ‘‘October 2010
final rule’’). In the October 2010 final
rule, DOE concluded that it would not
be technically feasible to develop an
integrated metric combining electrical
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the calculation of
overall annual energy consumption of
those products because the standby
mode and off mode energy usage, when
measured, is essentially lost in practical
terms due to the fact that manufacturers’
ratings of AFUE are presented to the
nearest whole number. Id. Although
furnace ratings are now reported to the
tenth place for compliance certification
purposes (see 10 CFR 429.18(a)(2)(vii)),
standby mode and off mode power
consumption is substantially less than
active mode power consumption and
may not be apparent in the measured
energy use of a furnace, and it does not
change the fact that DOE’s furnace
energy conservation standards using the
AFUE metric continue to be set at the
nearest whole number. As such, a
combined metric would likely not
provide consumers any meaningful
information as to the standby mode and
off mode energy use of a furnace and
may disincentivize manufacturers from
making improvements to standby mode
and off mode furnace efficiency.
DOE estimates that the electrical
standby mode and off mode power
consumption typically make up less
than one percent of the combined
furnace and furnace fan energy
consumption, meaning that small
increases in standby mode and off mode
consumption would have little bearing
on the AFUE2 rating. In its review of
data provided by AHRI as part of its
petition, DOE noted that a hypothetical
doubling of the standby mode power
consumption would result in a change
of the AFUE2 result of less than half of
one percent for each unit in the dataset.
The AHRI petition and accompanying
data do not support DOE changing its
prior determination that it is not be
technically feasible to combine standby
and off mode power consumption into
a combined metric, and therefore, the
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Department continues to conclude that
these standards should remain separate.
As discussed previously, NEMA
suggested that to prevent backsliding, in
conjunction with a combined metric,
DOE could create a separate
requirement for the efficiency of the
electrical component. (NEMA, No. 26 at
pp. 6–8) For example, under such an
approach, DOE would establish a
combined metric (e.g., AFUE2) but
would additionally require that the
furnace fan maintain a level of
efficiency (e.g., FER) no lower than the
currently established FER standard.
However, this approach was not
suggested in the AHRI Petition, and
DOE is not considering a modified
combined metric, because with certain
limited exceptions, DOE has interpreted
the statutory definition of ‘‘energy
conservation standard’’ at 42 U.S.C.
6291(6) and 42 U.S.C. 6311(18) as
permitting establishment of only a
single performance standard.11
Furthermore, DOE notes that it is not
clear that this suggested alternate
approach would reduce the regulatory
burden on manufacturers because a
combined metric would have to include
separate measurements and calculations
for fuel consumption efficiency (to be
compared to current AFUE standards),
standby mode and off mode power
consumption (to be compared to current
PW,SB and PW,OFF standards), and
furnace fan efficiency (to be compared
to current FER standards) in order to
prevent backsliding vis-a-vis any of the
current metrics. Therefore, such an
approach would effectively add an extra
metric (e.g., AFUE2) without replacing
11 DOE notes that it has adopted dual metrics
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), when the American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,
and set a dual metric and accompanying standard
levels. See, e.g., 77 FR 28928 (May 16, 2012) (DOE
adopted energy conservation standards for cooling
and heating modes in terms of both Energy
Efficiency Ratio (EER) and Coefficient of
Performance (COP) for variable refrigerant flow
(VRF) water-source heat pumps with cooling
capacities at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less
than 760,000 Btu/h (for which DOE did not
previously have standards) in response to updated
standards for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard
90.1.) DOE has also adopted a dual metric where
a consensus agreement has been presented to DOE
for adoption as a direct final rule (DFR) pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). See, e.g., 76 FR 37408 (June
27, 2011) (For central air conditioners, DOE
adopted dual metrics (i.e., the Seasonal Energy
Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and EER) for the hot-dry
region as recommended by a consensus agreement
supported by a variety of interested stakeholders
including manufacturers and environmental and
efficiency advocates.) DOE has interpreted these
specific statutory provisions as authorizing an
exception to the general rule previously stated.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:38 Sep 20, 2021
Jkt 253001
any of the current metrics in practical
terms.
Because DOE has determined that the
proposed AFUE2 combined metric for
furnaces and furnace fans would not be
permitted under EPCA, DOE considers
other comments received regarding the
AHRI Petition, and in particular
whether DOE should propose to adopt
the AFUE2 metric, to be resolved. With
regard to comments suggesting that DOE
should align its future rulemakings for
furnaces and furnace fans to minimize
regulatory burden on manufacturers,
DOE notes that it is bound by the
statutory timeline provisions set out in
EPCA. In particular, EPCA provides
that, not later than 6 years after the
issuance of any final rule establishing or
amending a standard, DOE must publish
either a notice of determination that
standards for the product do not need to
be amended, or a NOPR including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
product, including furnaces and furnace
fans, to determine whether amended
test procedures would more accurately
or fully comply with the requirements
for the test procedures to not be unduly
burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency,
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C.
6293(b)(1)(A)) To the extent feasible,
DOE will seek to align the statutory
review schedules for furnaces and
furnace fans consistent with the
provisions EPCA.
V. Denial of Petition
Taking into account all of the factors
discussed above and consistent with the
requirements under EPCA, DOE is
hereby denying AHRI’s petition for
rulemaking.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final denial of
petition for rulemaking.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on September 9,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That
document with the original signature
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
52429
and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the
Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register
Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in
electronic format for publication, as an
official document of the Department of
Energy. This administrative process in
no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September
9, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021–19813 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 1
[MD Docket 21–190; FCC 21–98; FRS 47254]
Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on two
issues that impact regulatory fees. First,
what methodology should we use to
assess regulatory fees on unlicensed
spectrum users, and second, how
should we calculate the fee for small
satellites that will become a feeable
category in FY 2022.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 21, 2021 and reply comments
on or before November 5, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments and reply comments
identified by MD Docket No. 21–190, by
any of the following methods below.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/
ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21SEP1.SGM
21SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 180 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52422-52429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19813]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017]
RIN 1904-AE37
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Consumer Warm
Air Furnaces; Final Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final denial of petition for rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document announces and provides the reasoning for the
U.S. Department of Energy's final denial of a petition filed by the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute requesting that
DOE initiate a notice-and-comment rulemaking to develop a new combined
test procedure for consumer furnaces and furnace fans, which would
replace the two currently required performance metrics for furnaces and
the one performance metric for furnace fans with a single new metric
called ``AFUE2.''
DATES: This final denial of petition for rulemaking is applicable
September 21, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The petition and comments filed in accordance with the
timelines set forth in the prior Federal Register notice have been
entered into docket number EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017. The docket is
available for review at www.regulations.gov. For further information on
how to review the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
II. Background and Authority
[[Page 52423]]
III. AHRI's Petition for Rulemaking Summary and Comments
IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion
V. Denial of Petition
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
This document denies a petition received by the U.S. Department of
Energy (``DOE'') from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (``AHRI'') requesting that DOE initiate a rulemaking to
develop a new combined test procedure addressing covered consumer
furnaces and furnace fans, which would replace the two currently
required performance metrics for furnaces (i.e., annual fuel
utilization efficiency (``AFUE'') and standby mode/off mode energy
consumption (PW,SB/PW,OFF)) and the one
performance metric for furnace fans (i.e., fan efficiency ratio
(``FER'')) with a single new metric called ``AFUE2.'' AHRI asserted
that a single performance metric would reduce regulatory burden for
furnace manufacturers by streamlining test requirements and aligning
regulatory review schedules and promote design flexibility and product
innovation.
DOE has determined that a combined test procedure and energy
conservation standard for consumer furnaces and furnace fans would
enable an increase in the maximum allowable energy use and/or minimum
required efficiency of furnaces and furnace fans, each a separate
covered product. AHRI's suggested unified metric would allow for trade-
offs in energy use between the two separately regulated modes of
furnace operation (i.e., active mode and standby mode/off mode) and
furnaces fans. These tradeoffs in turn have the potential to allow for
furnaces to consume more energy in active mode or standby mode/off mode
than permitted under the active mode and standby/off mode standards, or
for furnace fans to consume more energy than permitted under the
current furnace fan standard. This is impermissible under the ``anti-
backsliding'' provision of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ which prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) DOE has also determined that a unified
metric for consumer furnaces and furnace fans (using the proposed
combined metric AFUE2) would be contrary to DOE's prior determination
that it is technologically infeasible to integrate active mode and
standby or off mode energy use for furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, after carefully considering AHRI's request, supporting
materials accompanying the request, and submitted comments, DOE is
declining to grant AHRI's request for the reasons set forth in the
following discussion.
II. Background and Authority
EPCA, as amended, among of things, authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part B \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products
Other Than Automobiles, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency for certain types of consumer
products. These products include consumer furnaces and furnace fans,
the focus of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5); 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated as Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)),
and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that product (42
U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the product complies with relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered products. Specifically, EPCA requires that any test
procedures prescribed or amended must be reasonably designed to produce
test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and requires that test procedures
not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test
procedures for consumer furnaces and furnace fans are set forth in the
Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR part 430. More
specifically, the test procedure for furnaces is located at 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix N (``Appendix N''), Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers. The test
procedure for furnace fans is located at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix AA (``Appendix AA''), Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Furnaces Fans.
Relevant to this document, EPCA also requires DOE to follow
specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards
for covered products, including consumer furnaces and furnace fans. Any
new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary
of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA
also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that
either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(1))
Additionally, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA contained in the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public
Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation
standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address
standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3))
Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after
that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of
standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and
off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not
feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B))
DOE has established energy conservation standards for furnace
energy efficiency using the AFUE metric, which is the ratio of annual
output energy to annual input energy. 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii). DOE also
separately established energy
[[Page 52424]]
conservation standards for furnace standby mode and off mode electrical
power consumption, PW,SB and PW,OFF,
respectively, which account for all furnace electrical consumption in
standby and off modes. 10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(iii). DOE has established an
energy conservation standard for furnace fans using the FER metric,
which is the ratio of the electrical energy consumption to airflow in
watts per cubic feet per minute (CFM). 10 CFR 430.32(y). The FER metric
measures performance during active mode when the fan is circulating
air, but it does not include provisions for measuring standby mode and
off mode energy consumption of furnace fans (although appendix AA
includes a section reserved for future provisions to address standby
mode and off mode energy use, if necessary). Instead, the standby mode
and off mode energy consumption for furnace fans is addressed by the
test procedures and metrics for consumer furnaces and residential
central air conditioners and heat pumps, as these products operate in
conjunction with furnace fans. See 78 FR 19606, 19619 (April 2, 2013).
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.,
provides among other things, 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))
III. AHRI's Petition for Rulemaking Summary and Comments
On October 12, 2018, DOE received a petition from AHRI (``AHRI
Petition'') asking DOE to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking to
develop a new test procedure for residential furnaces and furnace fans
which would replace the two currently required performance metrics for
furnaces (i.e., AFUE and PW,SB/PW,OFF) and the
one performance metric for furnace fans (i.e., FER) with a single new
metric (i.e., AFUE2).\3\ On November 14, 2018, DOE published a Notice
of Petition for Rulemaking (``2018 Notice of Petition for Rulemaking'')
announcing the receipt of the AHRI Petition and inviting interested
parties to submit comments. 83 FR 56746.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The AHRI Petition is available in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017-0002. The
petition did not identify any of the information contained therein
as confidential business information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the petition, AHRI suggested AFUE2 metric would account for
furnace fuel, fan power, and standby mode and off mode power
consumption, and the measured value would represent the sum of usable
heat and fan benefit, divided by the total fuel and electricity
consumed. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2) \4\ AHRI asserted that transitioning to
a single metric, such as AFUE2, would reduce regulatory burden on
manufacturers by streamlining test requirements and aligning regulatory
review schedules, thereby promoting design flexibility and product
innovation. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 4-5) The petitioner further asserted
that consumers would also benefit by having a single, combined metric
for product comparison purposes and by receiving some portion of
anticipated cost savings, all of which could be achieved without
sacrificing energy savings. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 5-6) The petition
acknowledges that a combined metric would necessitate a translation of
the existing energy conservation standards applicable to residential
furnaces and furnace fans. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 6-7) Additionally, in a
separate letter to DOE dated November 2, 2018, AHRI requested that DOE
not enforce the reporting, certification and compliance obligations
related to the furnace fan energy conservation standards pending
consideration of their petition for rulemaking.\5\ (AHRI, No. 3 at pp.
1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket for the petition for rulemaking.
(Docket No. EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged as follows:
(Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
\5\ On November 2, 2018, DOE issued an enforcement policy
stating that it would not enforce the testing, certification, and
standards requirements for furnace fans while DOE considered the
2018 Petition for Rulemaking. In response to the policy statement
DOE received comments from a wide variety of parties as well as a
letter from AHRI requesting that DOE rescind the enforcement policy.
On February 11, 2019, DOE rescinded the November 2, 2018 policy
statement. The request that DOE not enforce the furnace fan energy
conservation pending consideration of the petition for rulemaking is
not considered further in this document. The policy statement and
rescission are available at www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/furnace-fan-enforcement-policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2018 Notice of Petition for Rulemaking, DOE invited
interested parties to submit comments regarding the petition. 83 FR
56746, 56746 (Nov. 14, 2018). DOE received comments in response to the
2018 Notification of Petition for Rulemaking from the interested
parties listed in Table II-1.\6\ In the following discussion, DOE
addresses the relevant comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Stakeholders' comments can be accessed in the docket at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017. DOE also received
several non-substantive comments or comments not relevant to the
petition, which are not included in the table.
Table II-1--Written Comments Received in Response to 2018 Notification of Petition for Rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning Heating, and Refrigeration AHRI................. Trade Association.
Institute.
Alliance to Save Energy....................... ASE.................. Efficiency Organizations.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Commenters..... Efficiency Organizations.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient
Economy, and Natural Resources Defense
Council.
California Energy Commission.................. CEC.................. State Agency.
Carrier Corporation........................... Carrier.............. Manufacturer.
Connecticut Department of Energy and CT DEEP.............. State Agency.
Environmental Protection.
Consumer Federation of America and National Consumer Groups...... Consumer Organizations.
Consumer Law Center.
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club.............. Earthjustice and the Efficiency Organizations.
Sierra Club.
Ingersoll Rand................................ Ingersoll Rand....... Manufacturer.
Lennox International.......................... Lennox............... Manufacturer.
Lochinvar/A.O. Smith Corporation.............. A.O. Smith........... Manufacturer.
National Electric Manufacturers Association... NEMA................. Trade Association.
National Grid................................. National Grid........ Utilities.
Natural Resources Defense Council............. NRDC................. Efficiency Organizations.
New York State Energy Research and Development NYSERDA.............. State Agency.
Authority.
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership....... NEEP................. Efficiency Organizations.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.......... NEEA................. Efficiency Organizations.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council...... NPCC................. Utilities.
[[Page 52425]]
Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California CA IOUs.............. Utilities.
Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric
(collectively the California Investor-Owned
Utilities).
Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors.......... PHCC................. Trade Association.
Regal Beloit America, Inc..................... Regal Beloit......... Manufacturer.
Rheem Manufacturing Company................... Rheem................ Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In general overview, furnace manufacturers supported the AHRI
petition, stating that a combined metric would lead to benefits for
both manufacturers and/or consumers. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 1-5;
Carrier, No. 33 at pp. 1, 3-4; Rheem, No. 45 at pp. 1-2; Ingersoll
Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) More specifically, manufacturers referenced the
fact that there are currently three different energy conservation
standards (and three different test procedures) related to consumer
furnace efficiency (i.e., AFUE, FER, and standby mode/off mode power
consumption) and that each of these regulations is subject to separate
regulatory review schedules. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3-4; Rheem, No. 45
at pp. 1-2) Lennox further stated that having so many separate
regulatory schedules places manufacturers, distributors, contractors,
and DOE in a constant state of change and adjustment. Lennox stated
that every time DOE amends standards, manufacturers must redesign
equipment, make capital investments to update manufacturing facilities,
republish marketing literature, and educate distributors, contractors,
and consumers about the changes. Lennox also asserted that the costs
associated with these activities are ultimately passed on to consumers.
(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3-5) Manufacturers stated that adopting the
AFUE2 metric, consolidating certification and testing requirements, and
streamlining rulemaking and redesign cycles could allow for more
effective utilization of manufacturer resources by reducing this
regulatory burden. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3-4; Carrier, No. 33 at p. 3;
Rheem, No. 45 at p. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1)
Manufacturers also generally asserted that the simplified ratings
could reduce design constraints or otherwise increase opportunities for
innovation. (Carrier, No. 33 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2; Ingersoll
Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) Lennox suggested that setting requirements for
individual furnace components restricts design choices between various
aspects of a residential furnace. Lennox stated that the AFUE2 test
method would promote innovation by enabling manufacturers to develop
the most effective solution for overall product efficiency at the
lowest cost. (Lennox, No. 34 at p. 5) In its petition, AHRI estimated
that the total reduction in regulatory burden resulting from
implementation of AFUE2 would save manufacturers more than $250 million
over thirty years. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 4) \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AHRI's calculations of burden reduction are included in
Exhibit 3, which was submitted with the original petition and can be
found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturers also stated that a combined metric would make it
easier for consumers to compare the overall efficiencies of furnace
models. (Carrier, No. 33 at pp. 3-4; Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3, 4) More
specifically, Lennox suggested that consumers (and selling contractors)
often do not understand that the energy consumption associated with the
FER metric generally is less than 5 percent of the total energy
consumed in the operation of a product, or that standby mode represents
a miniscule amount of energy use compared to the amount of energy used
to create heat via combustion. (Lennox, No. 34 at p. 3)
Lennox also commented that the AFUE2 metric would also have the
benefit of reducing the need for government intervention and saving
government resources by reducing the quantity of regulations. (Lennox,
No. 34 at pp. 2, 5) Finally, several furnace manufacturers commented
that although a crosswalk has not yet been completed, further work in
this area should continue and suggested that revised energy efficiency
standards (in terms of AFUE2) could reflect the overall system energy
efficiency already required by the AFUE, PWSB and
PWOFF, and FER metrics. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1;
Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 2, 4)
In contrast, efficiency organizations, State agencies, and
utilities generally opposed the petition, asserting that the combined
metric would obscure the efficiencies of separately regulated elements
(which often use different energy sources) and could potentially lead
to backsliding. These commenters also asserted that a combined metric
could reduce the amount of future energy savings potential. (NEEA, No.
35 at pp. 1, 4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 1-3; CEC, No. 38 at pp.
1-6; Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 31 at pp. 1, 3-4; NRDC, No.
39 at pp. 1, 4-5; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1-
4; NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1; CT DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1; NEMA, No. 26 at pp.
5-8)
Consumer Groups stated that AHRI's petition relies on the
assumption that a crosswalk can be generated to translate the three
current standards to a single standard that relies on AFUE2 without:
(a) Diminishing the energy savings that would otherwise be achieved,
(b) harming consumers, or (c) violating EPCA. These commenters stated
that it is unproven that such a crosswalk is possible and further
argued that such approach would not be permissible under EPCA.
(Consumer Groups, No. 31 at pp. 2-4)
The Joint Commenters stated that AHRI's requested change to the
test procedures (and subsequent changes to the energy conservation
standards), if adopted by DOE, would violate the specific directive
from EPCA that requires DOE to set air circulation efficiency
standards; illegally combine the required air circulation standard with
a standards based on fuel use; improperly apply the EPCA provision
regarding adjustment to standards based on test procedure changes to an
amendment merging standards; \8\ and adopt an approach for standby mode
and off mode power consumption that DOE has previously found is not
technically feasible. (Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 7) Earthjustice
and the Sierra Club and NRDC similarly stated
[[Page 52426]]
that DOE does not have authority under EPCA to crosswalk and combine
multiple metrics into a single combined metric, or the authority to
combine the standby mode and off mode power consumption metrics with
active mode energy consumption for furnaces. (Earthjustice and the
Sierra Club, No. 41 at pp. 4-6; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 3-6) Earthjustice
and the Sierra Club also stated that DOE does not have authority under
EPCA to combine the electrical energy consumption of furnace fans into
the fuel efficiency standards for furnaces. (Earthjustice and the
Sierra Club, No. 41 at pp. 2-3) Consumer Groups stated that AHRI's
position that 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) provides the authority for DOE to
develop an AFUE2 standard to replace the three current standards is in
error because AHRI is not proposing to amend an existing test procedure
(which is what 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) addresses), but rather to eliminate
existing test procedures and replace them with an entirely new test
procedure and associated standards. (Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ DOE understands the Joint Commenters to be referencing 42
U.S.C. 6293(e), which provides that in the case of any amended test
procedure, the Secretary shall determine to what extent, if any, the
proposed test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency,
measured energy use, or measured water use of any covered product as
determined under the existing test procedure and that if the
Secretary determines that the amended test procedure will alter the
measured efficiency or measured use, the Secretary shall amend the
applicable energy conservation standard as prescribed by certain
provisions specified in 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) during the rulemaking
carried out with respect to such test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple commenters also asserted that under the combined metric,
less-efficient furnace fans could be used and that this would reduce
the potential for future energy savings or enable the use of less-
efficient furnace fans than are currently allowed. (NEEP, No. 36 at p.
1; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 3-4; CT DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1; NYSERDA, No. 30 at
pp. 1-2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1-4;
NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 5-8; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 3-4; NPCC, No. 29
at p. 2; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2-3, 7; Earthjustice and the
Sierra Club, No. 41 at pp. 3-4)
Regal Beloit commented that the AFUE2 test procedure could
potentially result in an increase in the maximum allowable energy use
from furnace fans because the AFUE2 test procedure would change certain
definitions and/or values of certain variables that could lead to an
increase in the maximum allowable energy use of furnace fans. (Regal
Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) NEEP and CT DEEP commented that combining
efficiency standards could present new challenges for energy efficiency
efforts that use Federal standards in their calculations. (NEEP, No. 36
at p. 1; CT DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1)
PHCC supported the effort to consolidate metrics and streamline the
regulatory process (which it asserted would lead to reduced costs for
consumers), but also expressed concerns that the proposal should
undergo further review to ensure that no backsliding could occur.
(PHCC, No. 32 at pp. 1-2) NEMA supported the initiative to reduce
regulatory burden by consolidating the three existing test procedures
into a single metric for furnaces, but expressed concerns that the
proposal outlined in the AHRI Petition would not comply with statutory
requirements set forth in EPCA (specifically referencing the anti-
backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). NEMA encouraged DOE to
deny AHRI's petition but encouraged AHRI to reformulate its proposed
metric to ensure compliance with EPCA. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 2-8)
Several commenters expressed concern that the AFUE2 metric could
confuse, mislead, or otherwise negatively impact consumers by masking
the operating costs of different elements and products (with different
energy sources), or lead to increased consumer costs. (NEEA, No. 35 at
pp. 1-4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 1, 4, 8; NRDC, No. 39 at pp.
2, 8; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1-2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5-6; Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 3; Regal
Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 4-5) Similarly, ASE commented that the use of
site-energy equivalents (rather than primary energy or average energy
costs) to combine electricity and natural gas consumption into a single
metric could lead to backsliding and could significantly misrepresent
the relative energy operating costs to homeowners and consumers. (ASE,
No. 40 at p. 2) NYSERDA stated that AFUE2 would incentivize
manufacturers to optimize their designs to reduce site energy use,
rather than consumer costs or total energy use. (NYSERDA, No. 30 at p.
2) National Grid and the CA IOUs stated that combining fuel sources
into one metric creates confusion for utilities when estimating fuel
savings associated with different products, which could make it
difficult to develop incentive programs. (National Grid, No. 28 at p.
1; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5-6) The CA IOUs suggested that a shift to
AFUE2 would result in higher peak loads for electric utilities (which
these commenters argued could in turn lead to higher utility bills for
customers) because the saturation of efficient furnace fans and low
standby loss units will decrease (as fan/electrical efficiency has a
very limited impact on AFUE2 ratings). (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 7-8)
Regal Beloit added that maintaining the FER metric would protect
consumer choice by driving the use of high-efficiency motors in all
furnace types. (Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4)
Regarding manufacturer burden, the Joint Commenters suggested that
moving forward with the AFUE2 metric could undermine regulatory
predictability because it would strand the investments that furnace fan
component manufacturers and furnace manufacturers have already made
towards FER compliance. (Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 6-7) NEEP
asserted that the AFUE2 petition and enforcement policy would create
regulatory uncertainty and undue hardship for motor manufacturers,
retailers, distributors, and customers who are unclear about which
furnaces will be compliant with the new standards. (NEEP, No. 36 at p.
1) NEEA and the Joint Commenters also suggested that AHRI's proposal
would be damaging to manufacturers and their component and assembly
suppliers, who have already invested in the design and production of
products that meet the most recent efficiency standards. (NEEA, No. 35
at p. 3; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 6-7) The CA IOUs also
commented that there is no need for ``trade-offs'' between furnace fan
and furnace efficiency, asserting that DOE has shown efficiency
improvements to each rating to be cost-effective on their own. (CA
IOUs, No. 27 at p. 7)
Consumer Groups remarked that while reductions in regulatory burden
in the abstract are desirable, nothing in EPCA establishes ``reducing
regulatory burden'' as a statutory goal, and according to these
commenters, the contents of the AHRI petition violate explicit
provisions of that statutory scheme. Specifically, the Consumer Groups
provided several citations, which they argue require DOE to adopt and
enforce standards for furnaces, including 42 U.S.C. 6291(23) (defining
``furnace''), 42 U.S.C. 6291(22) (setting ``annual fuel utilization
efficiency'' as the ``efficiency descriptor'' for ``furnaces''), 42
U.S.C 6295(f)(1) (setting initial AFUE standards for furnaces), 42
U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) (directing DOE to set standards for furnace fans),
and 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) (directing DOE to set standards for furnace
standby mode and off mode energy use). (Consumer Groups, No. 31 at pp.
2-4)
NEEA disagreed with AHRI's claim that innovation would increase as
a result of adoption the AFUE2 metric and suggested that innovation
would actually decrease because manufacturers often improve product
features unrelated to efficiency at the same time that they redesign
products to meet new energy efficiency requirements. (NEEA, No. 35 at
p. 2) Similarly, the Joint Commenters commented that AFUE2 would allow
manufacturers to avoid innovating air movement designs and suggested
that increases in standards
[[Page 52427]]
drive innovation. (Joint Commenters, No. 42 at p. 9)
The Joint Commenters argued that AHRI's claim of manufacturer cost
savings is overstated and appears to result from the assumption that
furnace fan and standby mode and off mode efficiency improvements would
not be required, which the commenters argued is not realistic since
future standards must maximize technologically feasible and
economically justified efficiency improvements. These commenters also
argued that the assumption by AHRI that all future standards will have
the same conversion costs as the first standard is similarly
unrealistic, because future increases to the furnace fan standards will
not be as far-reaching as the initial standards. (Joint Commenters, No.
42 at p. 7)
Several commenters, including manufacturers, utilities, and
efficiency organizations, did come together in support of aligning
future rulemakings or compliance timelines (including AFUE, FER, and
PWSB and PWOFF test procedures and standards) to
reduce manufacturer burden. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 2, 5-6; Regal
Beloit, No. 25 at p. 1; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 7; CEC, No.
38 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 8-9; Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p.
3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 35 at p. 2) Lennox opined that EPCA
(specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) precludes DOE from imposing
AFUE and FER standards in an uncoordinated manner within a six-year
period. (Lennox, No. 34 at p. 6)
Several commenters stated that the AFUE2 metric was developed
without significant or open stakeholder input and/or argued that
further review would be required before it could be adopted. (NEEP, No.
36 at pp. 1-2; CT DEEP, No. 46 at pp. 1-2; NYSERDA, No. 30 at p. 2;
National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) Along
these lines, ASE suggested that a single metric is logical and
intuitive for consumers and could be investigated in a future
rulemaking to determine whether a single metric for furnaces is
feasible, capable of facilitating increased efficiency, and in the best
interests of homeowners and consumers. However, ASE also suggested that
DOE should conduct a thorough analysis of the possibility of a new test
procedure for the next energy conservation standard for furnaces to
avoid the need for a crosswalk and prevent the possibility of
backsliding. (ASE, No. 40 at p. 2) Similarly, NPCC supported the
concept of a single metric because it could be a simpler metric for
consumers, could reduce the number of test procedures and energy
conservation standards rulemakings for DOE and industry, and could
permit more flexible innovation by manufacturers. However, NPCC opposed
the petition as written, asserting that the specific AFUE2 approach in
the petition would likely reduce or eliminate the impact of the furnace
fan standards. (NPCC, No. 29 at p. 2)
NRDC and the CA IOUs specifically opposed the AFUE2 test
procedure's move to eliminate cyclic testing, asserting that this would
remove the incentives for manufacturers to reduce cycling losses.
(NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 6-7; CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 9) NRDC also asserted
that elimination of cyclic testing in the requested test procedure and
its modification of the assumed operating hours that go into
calculating AFUE are attempts to reopen issues that have already been
publicly discussed and decided by DOE. (NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 6-7)
NEMA recommended that in any future standard based on AFUE2, DOE
should require that the portion of the AFUE2 metric that accounts for
furnace electrical consumption be as stringent or more stringent than
the currently established FER standards. NEMA stated that this approach
would require the differences in AHRI's proposed AFUE2 formula and
DOE's FER formula (e.g., use of different operating hours) to be
reconciled. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 6-8) A.O. Smith commented that the
AFUE2 metric should not be applied to boilers based on the commenter's
understanding of the scope of the petitioners' request and the product
distinctions between a forced-air furnace and consumer boiler. A.O.
Smith expressed concerns with several aspects of the AFUE2 metric
including: (1) Inclusion of source-based power generation differences
between gas and electricity in the metric; (2) the technical
feasibility of integrating standby mode and off mode consumption with
fossil-fuel consumption for consumer boilers; and (3) the absence of an
affirmative indicator of intent to include consumer boilers in the
AFUE2 metric. (A.O. Smith, No. 44 at pp. 1-2)
As explained in the following section, DOE carefully considered the
relevant comments received in evaluating whether to initiate a
rulemaking to propose adoption of the AFUE2 metric as requested by AHRI
in its petition for rulemaking. DOE's response to these comments and
its decision on the AHRI Petition are discussed in the balance of this
document.
IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion
DOE first considered whether EPCA provides authority to adopt a
single metric for furnaces and furnace fans, as requested by AHRI in
their Petition for Rulemaking. As discussed, EPCA requires that any
test procedures prescribed or amended must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure energy efficiency or energy use of a
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of
use, as determined by the Secretary, and shall not be unduly burdensome
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) While the AHRI petition suggests
that standards relying on AFUE2 could be established through a
``crosswalk'' as part of the test procedure rulemaking under 42 U.S.C.
6293(e), that provision does not affect the Secretary's obligation to
issue final rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(4)) Among the obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295, EPCA requires
that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the
Secretary for any type (or class) of covered product must be designed
to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE must also generally
incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single
standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for
such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) Also
as discussed, EPCA contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1))
In the past, DOE has determined furnaces and furnace fans to be
separate covered products, each subject to the relevant test procedure
and energy conservation standard provisions under EPCA. 79 FR 38130,
38175 (July 3, 2014). EPCA explicitly includes furnaces in the list of
covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5)) Subject to certain criteria
and conditions, EPCA requires DOE to consider and establish energy
conservation standards for ``electricity used for purposes of
circulating air through duct work'' (which DOE has defined as
residential ``furnace fans'' at 10 CFR 430.2)). (42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D)) Accordingly, DOE has established energy conservation
standards at 10 CFR 430.32(y) for furnace fans as covered products
through a final rule published
[[Page 52428]]
in the Federal Register on July 3, 2014. 79 FR 38130. Separately, DOE
has established an energy conservation standard for furnaces governing
the energy efficiency of active mode (10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii)) and also
established standards for furnace standby mode and off mode electrical
power consumption (10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(iii)).
DOE first evaluated whether it would be possible to establish a
standard in terms of AFUE2 without increasing the maximum allowable
energy use or decreasing the minimum required efficiency of furnaces
(excluding during standby mode and off mode operation) and/or furnace
fans (i.e., whether a standard could be prescribed in terms of AFUE2
without violating EPCA's anti-backsliding provision).
A combined metric (i.e., AFUE2) for furnaces and furnace fans would
reflect the total energy consumption from both the furnace and furnace
fan. In its petition, AHRI described the concept of the AFUE2 metric as
follows: ``The AFUE2 metric accounts for furnace fuel, fan power, and
stand-by and off-mode power consumption. The measured value represents
the sum of usable heat and fan benefit, divided by the total fuel and
electricity consumed.'' (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2) As a result of combining
the various metrics into a single metric, manufacturers would be able
to make tradeoffs between the efficiencies of the various covered
products (e.g., using a less-efficient fan while improving the
efficiency of fuel consumption), which could lead to the efficiencies
of either covered product (i.e., either the furnace or furnace fan)
decreasing below the currently applicable energy conservation standard.
As an example, if a single energy conservation standard were
established for furnaces and furnace fans using the AFUE2 metric that
is of equivalent stringency to the current minimum AFUE and maximum
standby mode and off mode power consumption levels required for
furnaces, and the maximum FER levels allowed for furnace fans, then a
furnace paired with a highly efficient furnace fan could potentially
have a fuel consumption efficiency (i.e., AFUE) less than what is
currently required under the AFUE standards (e.g., less than 80 percent
AFUE for non-weatherized gas furnaces), resulting in backsliding for
the furnace efficiency as compared to the existing AFUE standard.
Similarly, an AFUE2 standard could be met by pairing a furnace with a
high AFUE (e.g., over 90 percent) with an inefficient furnace fan that
that would not separately meet the existing FER requirement. Furnaces
with high AFUE ratings could also potentially meet AFUE2 standards
despite having standby mode and/or off mode power consumption that are
not compliant with current requirements.
The CA IOUs provided test data for two units tested to the AFUE,
FER, and AFUE2 test procedures that illustrated the risk of
backsliding. The two units tested were both non-weatherized gas
furnaces, and both had 80-percent AFUE ratings, input capacities of
60,000 Btu/h, and maximum blower rated airflows of 1,200 CFM. One unit
(referred to as unit under test (``UUT'')-01) had a permanent split
capacitor blower motor and an FER rating of 359 Watts per 1,000 cfm
(which is non-compliant with the existing standard for furnace fans at
10 CFR 430.32(y)). The other unit (UUT-02) had a blower with a multi-
speed electrically commutated motor and an FER rating of 233 Watts per
1,000 cfm (which is compliant with the existing standard for furnace
fans at 10 CFR 430.32(y)). Despite the significant differences in fan
motor efficiencies, the AFUE2 ratings were only 1.3 percent
different.\9\ (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1-3) These test results
illustrate how efficiency improvements associated with a high-fuel-
efficiency furnace could offset efficiency decreases from using a low-
efficiency furnace fan at a given AFUE2 rating (i.e., illustrating how
under a unified metric, implementing a high-efficiency furnace
technology could enable backsliding of furnace fan energy efficiency).
Thus, if DOE were to adjust its existing furnaces energy conservation
standards to now also capture fan energy use, it would only impact
minimally compliant products and arguably grant an improper reprieve to
products at the higher end of the efficiency marketplace. Additionally,
as was also discussed by the CA IOUs, the data provided by AHRI in its
AFUE2 Petition Exhibit 2 (Example Calculations) \10\ suggests that
units with a wide range of FER ratings (including those that are
compliant with the current FER requirements and those that are not) can
have the same AFUE2 ratings. (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) As a result
of these findings, DOE has determined that adopting a single AFUE2
metric would violate EPCA's anti-backsliding provisions because it
would allow decreases in the energy efficiency of individual covered
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The CA IOUs did not measure jacket losses during testing and
used the default value of 1 percent, as is allowed by the furnace
test procedure at Appendix N if a jacket lost test is not conducted.
The CA IOUs also estimated the AFUE2 results with a jacket loss
factor of 0.3 percent, and the difference in ratings between UUT-01
and UUT-02 in that case was 1.2 percent.
\10\ The original data provided by AHRI can be found at
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BT-PET-0017-0002 as Exhibit
2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In evaluating the AHRI petition, DOE also separately sought to
determine whether it would be feasible to integrate the active mode
energy use and standby mode and off mode power consumption into an
integrated metric. DOE has previously determined in a final rule
published in the Federal Register that it is not feasible to establish
an energy conservation standard for furnaces that integrates electrical
standby mode and off mode energy use. 75 FR 64621, 64623 (Oct. 20,
2010; ``October 2010 final rule''). In the October 2010 final rule, DOE
concluded that it would not be technically feasible to develop an
integrated metric combining electrical standby mode and off mode energy
consumption into the calculation of overall annual energy consumption
of those products because the standby mode and off mode energy usage,
when measured, is essentially lost in practical terms due to the fact
that manufacturers' ratings of AFUE are presented to the nearest whole
number. Id. Although furnace ratings are now reported to the tenth
place for compliance certification purposes (see 10 CFR
429.18(a)(2)(vii)), standby mode and off mode power consumption is
substantially less than active mode power consumption and may not be
apparent in the measured energy use of a furnace, and it does not
change the fact that DOE's furnace energy conservation standards using
the AFUE metric continue to be set at the nearest whole number. As
such, a combined metric would likely not provide consumers any
meaningful information as to the standby mode and off mode energy use
of a furnace and may disincentivize manufacturers from making
improvements to standby mode and off mode furnace efficiency.
DOE estimates that the electrical standby mode and off mode power
consumption typically make up less than one percent of the combined
furnace and furnace fan energy consumption, meaning that small
increases in standby mode and off mode consumption would have little
bearing on the AFUE2 rating. In its review of data provided by AHRI as
part of its petition, DOE noted that a hypothetical doubling of the
standby mode power consumption would result in a change of the AFUE2
result of less than half of one percent for each unit in the dataset.
The AHRI petition and accompanying data do not support DOE changing its
prior determination that it is not be technically feasible to combine
standby and off mode power consumption into a combined metric, and
therefore, the
[[Page 52429]]
Department continues to conclude that these standards should remain
separate.
As discussed previously, NEMA suggested that to prevent
backsliding, in conjunction with a combined metric, DOE could create a
separate requirement for the efficiency of the electrical component.
(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 6-8) For example, under such an approach, DOE
would establish a combined metric (e.g., AFUE2) but would additionally
require that the furnace fan maintain a level of efficiency (e.g., FER)
no lower than the currently established FER standard. However, this
approach was not suggested in the AHRI Petition, and DOE is not
considering a modified combined metric, because with certain limited
exceptions, DOE has interpreted the statutory definition of ``energy
conservation standard'' at 42 U.S.C. 6291(6) and 42 U.S.C. 6311(18) as
permitting establishment of only a single performance standard.\11\
Furthermore, DOE notes that it is not clear that this suggested
alternate approach would reduce the regulatory burden on manufacturers
because a combined metric would have to include separate measurements
and calculations for fuel consumption efficiency (to be compared to
current AFUE standards), standby mode and off mode power consumption
(to be compared to current PW,SB and PW,OFF
standards), and furnace fan efficiency (to be compared to current FER
standards) in order to prevent backsliding vis-a-vis any of the current
metrics. Therefore, such an approach would effectively add an extra
metric (e.g., AFUE2) without replacing any of the current metrics in
practical terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ DOE notes that it has adopted dual metrics under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A), when the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, and set a dual metric and accompanying standard levels.
See, e.g., 77 FR 28928 (May 16, 2012) (DOE adopted energy
conservation standards for cooling and heating modes in terms of
both Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) and Coefficient of Performance
(COP) for variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps
with cooling capacities at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less
than 760,000 Btu/h (for which DOE did not previously have standards)
in response to updated standards for such equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.) DOE has also adopted a dual metric where a consensus
agreement has been presented to DOE for adoption as a direct final
rule (DFR) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). See, e.g., 76 FR 37408
(June 27, 2011) (For central air conditioners, DOE adopted dual
metrics (i.e., the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and EER)
for the hot-dry region as recommended by a consensus agreement
supported by a variety of interested stakeholders including
manufacturers and environmental and efficiency advocates.) DOE has
interpreted these specific statutory provisions as authorizing an
exception to the general rule previously stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because DOE has determined that the proposed AFUE2 combined metric
for furnaces and furnace fans would not be permitted under EPCA, DOE
considers other comments received regarding the AHRI Petition, and in
particular whether DOE should propose to adopt the AFUE2 metric, to be
resolved. With regard to comments suggesting that DOE should align its
future rulemakings for furnaces and furnace fans to minimize regulatory
burden on manufacturers, DOE notes that it is bound by the statutory
timeline provisions set out in EPCA. In particular, EPCA provides that,
not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be
amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered product, including furnaces and
furnace fans, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) To the extent
feasible, DOE will seek to align the statutory review schedules for
furnaces and furnace fans consistent with the provisions EPCA.
V. Denial of Petition
Taking into account all of the factors discussed above and
consistent with the requirements under EPCA, DOE is hereby denying
AHRI's petition for rulemaking.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
denial of petition for rulemaking.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
9, 2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy.
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19813 Filed 9-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
