Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces, 10726-10751 [2022-03484]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10726
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment. If
this instruction is followed, persons
viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names,
correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. No faxes
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format.
Provide documents that are not secured,
that are written in English, and that are
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11(e), (f), any
person submitting information that he
or she believes to be confidential and
exempt by law from mandatory public
disclosure should submit via email two
well-marked copies: One copy of the
document marked ‘‘confidential’’
including all the information believed to
be confidential, and one copy of the
document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’
with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. DOE will make its
own determination about the
confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notification of a
webinar and availability of preliminary
technical support document.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 7, 2022,
by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy 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
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 17,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022–03850 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041]
RIN 1904–AE57
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Commercial Warm Air
Furnaces
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
and announcement of public meeting.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the
test procedures for commercial warm air
furnaces (‘‘CWAFs’’) to incorporate the
latest versions of the industry standards
that are currently incorporated by
reference. DOE also proposes to
establish a new metric, Thermal
Efficiency Two (‘‘TE2’’), and
corresponding test procedure. Use of the
newly proposed test procedure would
become mandatory at such time as
compliance with amended energy
conservation standards based on TE2 is
required, should DOE adopt such
standards. DOE also proposes additional
specifications for CWAFs with multiple
vent hoods or small-diameter vent
hoods. DOE is seeking comment from
interested parties on the proposal.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this proposal
no later than April 26, 2022. See section
V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details.
DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday,
March 29, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants. If no
participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to Furnaces2019TP0041@
ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041 in the subject
line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (‘‘COVID–
19’’) pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments
via postal mail and hand delivery/
courier. If a commenter finds that this
change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program
staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the
need for alternative arrangements. Once
the COVID–19 pandemic health
emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for
public comment submission, including
postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts (if a public
meeting is held), comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-00410001. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V for
information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Julia Hegarty, 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: (240) 567–6737. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email:
Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in a public meeting (if one is held),
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
DOE
proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into 10
CFR part 431:
American National Standards
Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) Z21.47–2021, ‘‘Gasfired Central Furnaces’’;
ANSI/The American Scociety of
Mechanical Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) PTC
19.3–1974 (R2004), ‘‘Part 3:
Temperature Measurement, Instruments
and Apparatus’’;
ANSI/American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 103–
2017, ‘‘Method of Testing for Annual
Fuel Utilization Efficiency of
Residential Central Furnaces and
Boilers’’;
Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004) and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017, can be
obtained from American National
Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212)
642–4900, or online at:
webstore.ansi.org.
Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’)
standard UL 727–2018 ‘‘Standard for
Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces’’;
Copies of UL 727–2018 can be
obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW, Lake Rd.,
Camas, WA 98607–8542, (360) 817–
5500 or online at:
standardscatalog.ul.com.
ANSI/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) 1500–
2015 ‘‘Performance Rating of
Commercial Space Heating Boilers’’;
Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be
obtained from Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington,
VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or online at:
ahrinet.org.
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17
‘‘Standard Specification for
Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf)
Tables for Standardized
Thermocouples’’;
ASTM D240–09 ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10727
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter’’;
ASTM D396–14a ‘‘Standard
Specification for Fuel Oils’’;
ASTM D4809–09a ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’;
ASTM D5291–10 ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Instrumental Determination
of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in
Petroleum Products and Lubricants’’;
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–
17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–14a,
ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291–
10, and can be obtained from ASTM,
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428, (877) 909–2786 or by going
online at: www.astm.org.
National Fire Protection Association
(‘‘NFPA’’) 97–2003 ‘‘Standard Glossary
of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents,
and Heat-Producing Appliances’’.
Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be
obtained from National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471, (617) 770–
3000 or by going online at:
www.nfpa.org.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section IV.M of this
document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. UL 727–2006
2. HI BTS–2000
3. ANSI Z21.47
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
C. ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’ Metric
1. Jacket Loss
2. Part-Load Performance
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and
Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Multiple Vent Hoods
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Vent Space Limitations
3. Input Rate Tolerance
4. Flue Loss Determination
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization,
and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
G. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
1. Description of Why Action Is Being
Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10728
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance
Requirements
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With
Other Rules and Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Participation in the Webinar
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
CWAFs are included in the list of
‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend
energy conservation standards and test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) DOE’s
energy conservation standards and test
procedures for CWAFs are currently
prescribed at subpart D of part 431 of
title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (‘‘CFR’’). The following
sections discuss DOE’s authority to
establish test procedures for CWAFs and
relevant background information
regarding DOE’s consideration of test
procedures for this equipment.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 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 C 2 of EPCA,
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV,
section 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317) This equipment includes
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58 (Nov.
15, 2021).
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
CWAFs, the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42
U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements
consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment
must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying
to DOE that their equipment complies
with the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2)
making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C.
6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test
procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D); 42
U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered equipment.
EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of
covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and
requires that test procedures not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedure
for CWAFs be those generally accepted
industry testing procedures developed
or recognized by the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) or by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such
industry test procedure is amended,
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DOE must amend its test procedure to
be consistent with the amended
industry test procedure, unless DOE
determines, by rule published in the
Federal Register and supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that such
amended test procedure would not meet
the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)
and (3) related to representative use and
test burden, in which case DOE may
establish an amended test procedure
that does satisfy those statutory
provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and
(C))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
equipment, including CWAF, 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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines that a test
procedure amendment is warranted, the
Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register and
afford interested persons an opportunity
(of not less than 45 days’ duration) to
present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE
determines that test procedure revisions
are not appropriate, DOE must publish
its determination not to amend the test
procedures. DOE is publishing this
notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NOPR’’) in satisfaction of the 7-year
review requirement specified in EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
B. Background
DOE’s current test procedure for
CWAFs is codified at 10 CFR 431.76,
‘‘Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial warm air furnaces.’’ The
currently applicable test procedure
incorporates by reference two industry
standards for testing gas-fired CWAFs:
American National Standards Institute
(‘‘ANSI’’) Z21.47–2012, ‘‘Standard for
Gas-fired Central Furnaces’’ (‘‘ANSI
Z21.47–2012’’), which is used for all
types of gas-fired CWAFs; and ANSI/
American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 103–
2007, ‘‘Method of Testing for Annual
Fuel Utilization Efficiency of
Residential Central Furnaces and
Boilers’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007’’),
which is specifically used for testing
condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 10 CFR
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
431.76 (c)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (f)(1);10
CFR 431.75(b)(1) and (c)(1). The current
test procedure also incorporates by
reference two industry standards for
testing oil-fired CWAFs: Hydronics
Institute Division of AHRI (‘‘HI’’) BTS–
2000 Rev 06.07, ‘‘Method to Determine
Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating
Boilers’’ (‘‘HI BTS–2000’’) 3 and
Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) UL
727–2006, ‘‘Standard for Safety OilFired Central Furnaces’’ (‘‘UL 727–
2006’’).4 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2), (d)(1), and
(e)(2); 10 CFR 471.75(d)(1) and (e)(2).
DOE most recently amended the test
procedure for CWAFs in a final rule
published on July 17, 2015, which
updated the test procedure for gas-fired
CWAFs to incorporate by reference the
latest versions of the industry standards
available at the time (i.e., ANSI Z21.47–
2012 and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007). 80
FR 42614 (‘‘July 2015 final rule’’). At the
time of the July 2015 final rule, UL 727–
2006 and HI BTS–2000 were still the
most recent versions of those industry
standards.
10729
On May 5, 2020, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’)
soliciting public comments, data, and
information on aspects of the existing
DOE test procedure for CWAFs,
including whether there are any issues
with the current test procedure and
whether it is in need of updates or
revisions. 85 FR 26626 (‘‘May 2020
RFI’’).
DOE received comments in response
to the May 2020 RFI from the interested
parties listed in Table I.1.
TABLE I.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2020 RFI
Commenter(s)
Reference in this NOPR
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ..............................................................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ....................................................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the ‘‘California
Investor-Owned Utilities’’).
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...........................................................
American Public Gas Association ..........................................................................................
Carrier Corporation ................................................................................................................
Trane Technologies ...............................................................................................................
ASAP ..............................
NEEA ..............................
CA IOUs .........................
Efficiency Organization.
Efficiency Organization.
Utility Organization.
AHRI ...............................
APGA .............................
Carrier ............................
Trane ..............................
Trade Association.
Trade Association.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.5
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A
(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is
deviating from the provision in
appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR
stages for a test procedure rulemaking.
See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021)
(effective January 12, 2022). Section 8(b)
of appendix A states if DOE determines
that it is appropriate to continue the test
procedure rulemaking after the early
assessment process, it will provide
further opportunities for early public
input through Federal Register
documents, including notices of data
availability and/or RFIs. DOE is opting
to deviate from this provision due to the
substantial feedback and information
supplied by commenters in response to
the May 2020 RFI.
As discussed in section I.B of this
NOPR, the May 2020 RFI requested
submission of such comments, data, and
information pertinent to test procedures
for CWAFs. In response to the May 2020
RFI, stakeholders provided substantial
comments and information, which DOE
3 DOE determined that UL 727–1994 did not
provide a procedure for calculating the percent flue
loss of the furnace, which is necessary in
calculating the thermal efficiency, and therefore
incorporated by reference provisions from HI BTS–
2000 to calculate the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs.
69 FR 61916, 61917, 61940 (Oct. 21, 2004).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
Commenter type
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
update its test procedures for CWAFs as
follows:
(1) Reorganize the setup and testing
provisions in 10 CFR 431.76 related to
the determination of thermal efficiency
into the newly established 10 CFR part
431, subpart D, appendix A (‘‘appendix
A’’);
(2) Incorporate by reference the most
recent versions of the currently
referenced industry standards:
• UL 727–2018 (previously UL 727–
2006) for testing oil-fired CWAFs;
• AHRI 1500–2015 (previously HI
BTS–2000) for performing fuel oil
analysis and for calculating flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs;
• ANSI Z21.47–2021 (previously
ANSI Z21.47–2012) for testing gas-fired
CWAFs; and
• ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017
(previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007)
for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference the
standards referenced in UL 727–2018
(i.e., NFPA 97–2003), AHRI 1500–2015
(i.e., ASTM D396–14a, ASTM D240–09,
ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291–
10), and ANSI Z21.47–2021 (i.e., ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)) that are
necessary for performing the DOE test
procedure;
(4) Clarify how to test units with
multiple vent hoods, and units with
vent hoods that are 2 inches or smaller
in diameter; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at
10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B
(‘‘appendix B’’), which would generally
require testing as in appendix A, but
which would establish a new metric,
‘‘TE2.’’ The new TE2 metric would
account for jacket losses and part-load
operation in addition to accounting for
flue losses. If adopted, manufacturers
could use proposed new appendix B to
make voluntary representations of TE2;
this proposed test procedure would
become mandatory at such time as
compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on
TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
4 UL 727–1994 is also incorporated by reference
in 10 CFR 431.75, but is no longer referenced in the
test method specified in 10 CFR 431.76, which
references only UL 727–2006.
5 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket of DOE’s
rulemaking to develop test procedures for CWAFs.
(Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041, which is
maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name,
comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
has found sufficient to identify the need
to modify the test procedures for
CWAFs. Section III of this NOPR
discusses in detail the comments
received and how early stakeholder
feedback has been considered in
forming DOE’s proposals to amend the
CWAF test procedure.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10730
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DOE’s proposed actions are
summarized in Table II.1 compared to
the current test procedure as well as the
reason for the proposed change.
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE
Current DOE test procedure
Proposed test procedures
Applicable test
procedure
References UL 727–2006 for testing oilfired CWAFs.
Incorporate by reference UL 727–2018 for testing oilfired CWAFs, and the standards referenced in UL
727–2018 that are necessary in performing the
DOE test procedure (i.e., NFPA 97–2003).
Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–2015 for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue
loss of oil-fired CWAFs and the standards referenced in AHRI 1500–2015 that are necessary in
performing the DOE test procedure (i.e., ASTM
D396–14a, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D4809–09a,
and ASTM D5291–10).
Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–2021 for testing gas-fired CWAFs, and the standards referenced in ANSI Z21.47–2021 that are necessary
in performing the DOE test procedure (i.e., ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)).
Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017
for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs.
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Align with industry standard update.
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Align with industry standard update.
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Align with industry standard update.
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Align with industry standard update.
Adds specifications for units with multiple vent hoods.
Measurements made in each vent hood shall be
averaged or adjusted using a weighted average,
depending on the flue hood face area.
Adds specifications to address units with small-diameter vent hoods. Units with vent hoods that are
2 inches or smaller in diameter may optionally use
5 thermocouples.
Establishes a new metric (TE2) that accounts for flue
losses, jacket losses, and part-load operation.
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Additional specification to
improve consistency
and repeatability in testing.
Additional specification to
improve consistency
and repeatability in testing.
Improve representativeness.
References HI BTS–2000 for performing
fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue
loss of oil-fired CWAFs.
References ANSI Z21.47–2012 for testing gas-fired CWAFs.
References ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007
for testing condensing gas-fired
CWAFs.
Does not specify how to test units with
multiple vent hoods.
Does not specify how to test units with
vent hoods that are too small to fit
nine thermocouples.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Efficiency metric (TE) only accounts for
flue losses and does not account for
jacket losses or part-load operation.
DOE has tentatively determined that
the proposed amendments for the test
procedure at appendix A described in
section III of this document would not
alter the measured efficiency of CWAFs,
that the proposed test procedures would
not be unduly burdensome to conduct,
and that the proposed test procedures
more accurately produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs of CWAFs
during a representative average use
cycle.
The additional proposed amendments
for the newly proposed appendix B
would alter the reported efficiency of
CWAFs, as discussed in the relevant
section of this document. However, as
proposed, testing in accordance with
these specific proposed changes would
not be required until such time as
compliance is required with any
amended energy conservation standards
based on appendix B.
Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions
are discussed in detail in section III of
this document.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE
describes the proposed amendments to
the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
seeks input from the public to assist
with its consideration of the proposed
amendments presented in this
document. In addition, DOE welcomes
comments on other relevant issues that
may not specifically be identified in this
document.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to CWAFs.
EPCA defines ‘‘warm air furnace’’ as a
self-contained oil-fired or gas-fired
furnace designed to supply heated air
through ducts to spaces that require it
and includes combination warm air
furnace/electric air conditioning units,
but does not include unit heaters and
duct furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A))
DOE codified the statutory definition of
‘‘warm air furnace’’ at 10 CFR 431.72.
DOE defines a CWAF as a warm air
furnace that is industrial equipment,
and that has a capacity (rated maximum
input) of 225,000 British thermal units
(‘‘Btu’’) per hour or more. 10 CFR
431.72.
DOE did not receive any comments in
response to the May 2020 RFI related to
the scope of the CWAF test procedure
or relevant definitions for CWAFs. DOE
is not proposing any changes to the
scope of equipment covered by its
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Appendix A and
appendix B.
Appendix B .......
Attribution
CWAF test procedures, or to the
relevant definitions.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, DOE currently
incorporates by reference in 10 CFR part
431, subpart D, the following industry
test procedures: UL 727–2006, HI–BTS
2000, ANSI Z21.47–2012, and ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 103–2007. Updates
of each of these test standards have been
published since they were incorporated
into the current test procedure. These
updated test standards are UL 727–2018
(update to UL 727–2006), AHRI 1500–
2015 (update to HI–BTS 2000), ANSI
Z21.47–2021 6 (update to ANSI Z21.47–
2016), and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
103–2017 (update to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 103–2007).
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted
several differences between the industry
standards currently incorporated by
reference and the updated industry
standards and sought comment on these
changes. 85 FR 26626, 26629–26631.
Each change in the updated versions of
6 At the time of the May 2020 RFI publication,
ANSI Z21.47–2016 was the most up-to-date version
of ANSI Z21.47. Since then, ANSI Z21.47–2021 was
published.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
each standard and stakeholder
comments in response to the May 2020
RFI are discussed in the following
sections. DOE did not identify any
substantive differences between the
currently referenced industry standards
and their updated versions that would
pertain to the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs, other than those discussed in
the following sections. In response to
the updates to the relevant industry
standards, DOE is proposing to amend
the Federal test procedure for CWAFs to
incorporate by reference in 10 CFR part
431, subpart D, the following updated
industry standards: UL 727–2018, AHRI
1500–2015, ANSI Z21.47–2021, and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017.
As discussed, the DOE test procedure
for CWAFs is specified in 10 CFR
431.76. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing
to establish appendix A to subpart D of
10 CFR part 431. DOE is reorganizing
the CWAF setup and testing provisions
currently proscribed in 10 CFR 431.76
into appendix A to clarify the test
provisions that are necessary for
determining thermal efficiency. DOE is
reorganizing 10 CFR 431.76 in the way
because, as discussed in section III.C of
this document, DOE is also establishing
appendix B for determining the
proposed thermal efficiency two metric.
DOE has tentatively determined that
creating separate appendixes for the
determination of the two different
metrics would help clarify which
appendix corresponds to which metric
(i.e., appendix A is for thermal
efficiency, while appendix B is for
thermal efficiency two). Therefore, the
establishment of appendix A is editorial
and for reorganization purposes, and
appendix A does not deviate from the
current DOE test procedure unless
specifically discussed in the sections
below and in section III.E of this
document.
1. UL 727–2006
The CWAF test procedure at 10 CFR
431.76 requires use of those procedures
contained in UL 727–2006 that are
relevant to the steady-state efficiency
measurement (i.e., UL 727–2006
sections 1 through 3; 37 through 42
(except for sections 40.4 and 40.6.2
through 40.6.7); 43.2; and 44 through
46). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
identified two updates in UL 727–2018
relating to the scope and to
thermocouple tolerance. 85 FR 26626,
26629–26630. In addition, since the
publication of the May 2020 RFI, DOE
has identified one additional update in
UL 727–2018 related to the definitions
incorporated in section 3 of UL 727–
2018. These updates, the comments
received from stakeholders regarding
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
these updates, and DOE’s proposal for
each update are discussed in detail in
the following sections. As previously
mentioned in section III.B of this
document, DOE is proposing to amend
the DOE test procedure to incorporate
by reference UL 727–2018.
a. Scope of UL 727
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
the language in section 1 of the UL 727–
2018 test standard regarding the scope
of the standard has been changed from
that in UL 727–2006. 85 FR 26626,
26630. Section 1.3 in UL 727–2006
references the NFPA ‘‘Standard for
Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment,’’
NFPA 31, and codes such as the
‘‘Building Officials Code Administrators
International National Mechanical
Code,’’ the ‘‘State Building Code
Council Standard Mechanical Code,’’
and the ‘‘International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
Uniform Mechanical Code’’ for
requirements for the installation and use
of oil-burning equipment. In contrast,
Section 1.3 of UL 727–2018 references
the NFPA ‘‘Standard for Installation of
Oil-Burning Equipment,’’ NFPA 31, the
‘‘International Mechanical Code,’’ and
the ‘‘Uniform Mechanical Code’’
regarding installation and use of oilburning equipment.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE explained
that DOE defines the scope for the
testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a),
and that the scope of applicability of the
DOE test procedure is independent from
the scope defined by UL–727–2006. 85
FR 26626, 26630. Although DOE
references the scope of UL 727–2006 in
its test provisions at 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2), only the procedures within
UL 727–2006 that are pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state
efficiency are included in the DOE test
procedure. 10 CFR 431.76(b). Therefore,
any provisions within the scope of UL
727–2006 that do not relate to the
measurement of the steady-state
efficiency do not apply to the DOE test
procedure.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought
comment on whether there is a need to
identify more specifically the provisions
of UL 727–2006 that apply to the DOE
test procedure. Id. In response, AHRI
recommended the adoption of the most
current edition of UL 727 published in
2018 and stated that it does not believe
there is a need to identify provisions
from the 2006 edition in the DOE test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE has tentatively determined that
the scope section of UL 727–2018 is
inapplicable to the DOE test procedure
because the scope of the DOE test
procedure is defined separately in 10
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10731
CFR 431.76(a), and only the provisions
in UL 727–2018 that relate to the
measurement of steady-state efficiency
apply to the DOE test procedure. While
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference UL 727–2018 in its entirety,
DOE is proposing to explicitly identify
the provisions of UL 727–2018 that are
applicable to the DOE test procedure for
CWAF, which would not include the
scope section of that industry standard,
since the scope of the DOE test
procedure is defined separately in 10
CFR 431.76(a).
b. Thermocouple Tolerance
The DOE test procedure currently
incorporates Section 40 of UL 727–2006
for the test set-up for oil-fired
commercial warm air furnaces. 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
noted that Section 40.6.1 of UL 727–
2018, which pertains to temperature
measurements using potentiometers and
thermocouples, has different language
from UL 727–2006 and incorporates
different ANSI references. 85 FR 26626,
26629–26630. Specifically, UL 727–
2006 specifies that the thermocouple
wire must conform to the requirements
specified in the Initial Calibration
Tolerances for Thermocouples table
(i.e., Table 8) in International Society of
Automation (‘‘ISA’’) standard MC96.1,
‘‘Temperature-Measurement
Thermocouples’’ (‘‘ANSI/ISA MC96.1’’).
In contrast, UL 727–2018 states that the
thermocouple wire must conform to the
requirements specified in the Tolerance
on Initial Values of Electromagnetic
Force (‘‘EMF’’) Versus Temperature
tables (i.e., Tables 1–3) in ANSI/ASTM
E230/E230M–17 ‘‘Standard
Specification for TemperatureElectromotive Force (emf) Tables for
Standardized Thermocouples,’’ (‘‘ASTM
E230/E230M–17’’). The thermocouple
specifications in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 and
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 are
applicable only to the range of
temperatures associated with the types
of thermocouples specified in each of
the industry standards. As discussed in
the May 2020 RFI, based on an initial
review of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17,
the temperature ranges to which the
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17
specifications apply differ from the
temperature ranges specified in MC96.1
for certain thermocouple wires.
Specifically, ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–
17 includes temperature ranges and
specifications for thermocouple types C,
N, and mineral-insulated metalsheathed E type, which are not included
in ANSI/ISA MC96.1; and tolerances on
initial values of EMF versus temperature
for extension wires and compensating
extension wires in ANSI/ASTM E230/
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10732
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
E230M–17 (i.e., Tables 2 and 3) have
been added to Section 40.6.1 of UL 727–
2018. Id. at 85 FR 26630.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment regarding the changes
resulting from UL 727–2018 referencing
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17.
Specifically, DOE asked for comment on
whether the additional references and
changes to the thermocouple and
thermocouple extension wire
requirements would impact the
representativeness of the measured test
results or test burden of the DOE CWAF
test procedure, if adopted. Id. DOE also
sought comment on why Section 40.6.1
in UL 727 was changed from referencing
ANSI/ISA MC96.1 in UL 727–2006, to
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M in UL 727–
2018. DOE requested input on the
perceived benefits and/or drawbacks of
such change. 85 FR 26626, 26630.
AHRI encouraged DOE to evaluate
how any additions or changes to the
thermocouple and thermocouple
extension wire requirements to
determine the full impact any
differences may have on current
products’ ability to remain compliant.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI also
commented that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 is an
obsolete standard that was last
published in 1982 and was
administratively withdrawn by ISA in
2011. Additionally, AHRI stated that the
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 standard
represents current technologies and is
maintained on a periodic basis in
accordance with the ASTM standards
development procedures. (AHRI, No. 7
at pp. 2–3)
DOE has confirmed that ANSI/ISA
MC96.1 was administratively
withdrawn by ISA. As the ANSI/ASTM
E230/E230M–17 standard is the current
industry standard regarding
thermocouples, it is expected that
thermocouples currently being used for
testing meet the specifications of that
industry standard. Furthermore, DOE
notes that the requirements in ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M–17 allow additional
thermocouple wires for testing, in
addition to those that were specified in
ANSI/ISA MC96.1. Therefore, DOE
expects units tested according to the
previous requirements in ANSI/ISA
MC96.1 would subsequently meet those
in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17. DOE
received no additional comments on
this topic. Absent data and information
to indicate that the requirements in
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 are not
appropriate or result in a significant
change from the provisions in ANSI/ISA
MC96.1. DOE has tentatively
determined that there is not sufficient
evidence to indicate ANSI/ASTME230/
E230M–17 would not meet the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)
and (3), related to representative use
and test burden. Additionally, if DOE
were to continue to reference a test
procedure that is administratively
withdrawn, industry may find it
difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete
standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing
to incorporate the ANSI/ASTM E230/
E230M–17 thermocouple provisions
referenced in UL 727–2018 (i.e., Tables
1–3 of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17) in
the DOE test procedure for CWAFs.
c. NFPA 97–2003
Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727–
2018 state that the definitions of terms
‘‘combustible’’ and ‘‘noncombustible’’
are the definitions found within NFPA
97M, ‘‘Standard Glossary of Terms
Relating to Chimneys, Gas Vents and
Heat Producing Appliances’’ (‘‘NFPA
97M’’). UL 727–2018 does not specify
which version of NFPA 97M is being
referenced in the standard, nor does it
include a publication date of version
number of the NFPA 97M standard. The
latest version of NFPA 97M of which
DOE is aware is a version published in
1967. DOE also notes that NFPA’s
website does not contain a NFPA 97M
publication, and instead contains NFPA
97–2003 ‘‘Standard Glossary of Terms
Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and HeatProducing Appliances’’ (NFPA 97–
2003). NFPA 97–2003 contains
definitions for ‘‘combustible material’’
and ‘‘noncombustible material,’’
however NFPA 97M only contains a
definition for ‘‘combustible material.’’
DOE notes that there are minor
differences between the definitions for
‘‘combustible material’’ in both
standards, and that DOE tentatively
concludes that there are no substantial
differences.7 Further, DOE has
tentatively concluded that UL 727–2018
references an outdated standard (NFPA
97M) and should instead reference the
most up-to-date industry standard
(NFPA 97–2003). Therefore, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference
NFPA 97–2003, and is proposing that
the references to NFPA 97M that are
7 NFPA 97–2003 defines ‘‘combustible material’’
as ‘‘material made of or surfaced with wood,
compressed paper, plant fiber, plastics, or other
material that can ignite and burn, whether
flameproofed or not, or whether plastered or
unplastered.’’ (Section 3.3.44 of NFPA 97–2003)
NFPA 97M defines ‘‘combustible material’’ as
‘‘combustible material, as pertaining to materials
adjacent to or in contact with heat-producing
appliances, chimney connectors and vent
connectors, steam and hot-water pipes, and warmair ducts, means material made of or surfaced with
wood, compressed paper, plant fibers, or other
materials that will ignite and burn. Such material
shall be considered as combustible even though
flameproofed, fire-retardant treated, or plastered.’’
(NFPA 97M, part II, p. 193)
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
relevant to the DOE test procedure (i.e.,
those made within Sections 3.11 and
3.27 of UL 727–2018) shall instead
reference NFPA 97–2003.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative
conclusion that NFPA 97M is an
outdated standard that has been
superseded by NFPA 97–2003. DOE
seeks comment on its proposal to
incorporate by reference NFPA 97–2003
in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
2. HI BTS–2000
DOE’s test procedure for oil-fired
CWAFs references sections of HI BTS–
2000 that are relevant to fuel oil analysis
and calculating percent flue loss (i.e., HI
BTS–2000 sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5,
and 11.1.6.2). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2) and
(e)(2). DOE’s test procedure includes
these provisions because DOE has
previously determined that UL 727 does
not provide a procedure for calculating
the percent flue loss of the furnace,
which is necessary in calculating the
thermal efficiency (‘‘TE’’), and therefore
incorporated by reference provisions
from HI BTS–2000 to calculate the flue
loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR 61916,
61917, 61940.
In 2015, HI BTS–2000 was
redesignated by AHRI as AHRI 1500–
2015. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
identified two substantive changes in
the sections relevant to the DOE test
procedure in the update from HI BTS–
2000 to AHRI 1500–2015 regarding fuel
oil analysis and calculation of flue loss.
85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE requested
comment generally regarding whether
any of the differences between Sections
8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI
BTS–2000 and AHRI 1500–2015 are
relevant to the DOE test procedure, and
if so, how such differences would
impact the representativeness of
measurements and the associated test
burden of the DOE commercial warm air
furnaces test procedure, if adopted. Id.
at 85 FR 26631. The updates to AHRI
1500–2015, the comments received from
stakeholders regarding these updates,
and DOE’s proposal for each update are
discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs. As previously mentioned in
section III.B of this document, DOE is
proposing to amend the DOE test
procedure to incorporate by reference
AHRI 1500–2015.
a. Fuel Oil Analysis Requirements
DOE’s test procedure for oil-fired
CWAFs includes fuel oil analysis
requirements that reference Section
8.2.2 of HI BTS–2000. 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2). As noted in the May 2020
RFI, Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500–
2015 (previously Section 8.2.2 of HI
BTS–2000) specifies different fuel oil
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
analysis requirements (i.e., heating
value analyzed per ASTM D240–09 8 or
ASTM D4809–09a,9 hydrogen and
carbon content analyzed per ASTM
D5291–10,10 and density and American
Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’)
gravity analyzed per ASTM D396–
14a 11) than are required in Section 8.2.2
of HI BTS–2000 (i.e., heat value,
hydrogen and carbon content, density
and API gravity analyzed per ASTM
D396–90 12). 85 FR 26626, 26631.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment regarding the differences
between the fuel oil analysis
requirements in each standard, whether
the differences between the two would
yield different results during testing,
and whether adopting AHRI 1500–2015
would add or reduce burden to the
current testing requirements of the DOE
test procedure. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
ensure that fuel oil analysis
requirements are consistent across
applicable test procedures. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the two
standards show no significant changes
and that adoption of AHRI 1500–2015
would not yield different results during
testing. AHRI reiterated its support for
the adoption of the most current edition
of this standard, stating that this edition
represents the most current technology
and information available at the time of
publication, and that HI BTS–2000 is an
obsolete standard no longer maintained
by AHRI. Furthermore, AHRI stated that
it has determined that there is no
change in the burden by adopting AHRI
1500–2015. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has not received any information
or data indicating that updating the HI
BTS–2000 reference to AHRI 1500–2015
would result in a test procedure that
would not meet the representativeness
requirements or be unduly burdensome
to conduct. DOE has confirmed that HI
BTS–2000 is no longer maintained by
AHRI and has tentatively determined
that it is an obsolete standard. AHRI
1500–2015 represents the industry’s
most up to date requirements for fuel oil
analysis, and no issues or differences
between the new and old standards that
8 ASTM D240–09 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Heat
of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by
Bomb Calorimeter’’ (‘‘ASTM D240–09’’).
9 ASTM D4809–09a ‘‘Standard Test Method for
Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels
by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’ (‘‘ASTM
D4809–09a’’).
10 ASTM D5291–10 ‘‘Standard Test Methods for
Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen,
and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and
Lubricants’’ (‘‘ASTM D5291–10’’).
11 ASTM D396–14a ‘‘Standard Specification for
Fuel Oils’’ (‘‘ASTM D396–14a’’).
12 ASTM D396–90 ‘‘Standard Specification for
Fuel Oils’’ (‘‘ASTM D396–90’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
would impact results or require
retesting have been reported to DOE.
Because of this, and based on
stakeholder comment, DOE has
tentatively determined that
incorporating AHRI 1500–2015 into the
DOE test procedure would not impact
the performance of a CWAF under test
or require CWAFs to be retested.
Additionally, if DOE were to continue to
reference a test procedure that is
administratively withdrawn, industry
may find it difficult to obtain copies of
the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE
has tentatively determined that AHRI
1500–2015, the successor industry
standard to the currently referenced HI
BTS–2000, contains fuel oil analysis
requirements that are equivalent to the
requirements in HI BTS–2000 and are
currently being used by test facilities.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–
2015, including its fuel oil analysis
specifications.
b. Calculation of Carbon Dioxide in Flue
Gas Losses
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
Section 11.1.4 of HI BTS–2000 requires
that the carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) value
used in the calculation of the dry flue
gas loss for oil must be the measured
CO2. 85 FR 26626, 26631. Section C7.2.4
of AHRI 1500–2015 (previously Section
11.1.4 in HI BTS–2000) includes the
option to calculate CO2 using the
measured oxygen (‘‘O2’’) value instead
of directly measuring the CO2 value.
The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR
431.76(d) requires that CO2 must be
measured.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment on whether the option to
calculate CO2 in AHRI 1500–2015 yields
different testing results compared to
using the measured value, and whether
it should adopt the AHRI 1500–2015
provisions that allow for measuring O2
and calculating CO2. Id. The CA IOUs
stated that measuring CO2 levels is more
accurate than calculating CO2 levels
based on O2 measurements. The CA
IOUs also stated that since certified labs
and manufacturers are already equipped
to measure CO2, DOE should maintain
the current requirement for direct CO2
measurements. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4)
AHRI recommended that the option to
calculate CO2 based on a measurement
of O2 be added to the DOE test method.
AHRI stated that using a calculated CO2
yields comparable results and is
equivalent using a measured CO2 value.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has identified O2 sensors on the
market that are accurate to within ±0.1
percent, which is equivalent to or
greater than the accuracy of the CO2
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10733
sensors used in labs that perform CWAF
testing. Therefore, if such O2 sensors are
used to measure O2 as a means for
calculating CO2, the value of CO2
obtained through calculation and the
value obtained through direct
measurement should be comparable.
DOE also consulted with independent
third-party testing facilities and found
that some of these facilities currently
use sensors that measure O2 in the flue
gasses and perform an internal
calculation to determine CO2 in the flue
gasses. In addition, AHRI 1500–2015
includes the option to directly measure
CO2, so if that option is less
burdensome, test facilities would
continue to be able to rely on it. DOE
has tentatively determined that
calculating CO2 using a measured O2
value, as specified in AHRI 1500–2015,
would provide results equivalent to the
CO2 measurement currently required by
the DOE test method, and that allowing
a calculated value of CO2 would
harmonize with the latest industry
standard without increasing test burden.
For these reasons, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the provisions
in AHRI 1500–2015 that provide an
optional procedure for measuring CO2
based on measured O2 values. DOE also
proposes to establish section 3 of
appendix A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR
431.76(d) of the current DOE test
procedure) to reflect DOE’s proposal to
allow measuring O2, and this includes
requiring that O2 measurements are
determined with an instrument that has
a reading error no greater than ±0.1
percent. DOE notes that Table C1 of
AHRI 1500–2017 specifies that O2 shall
be measured with an accuracy no
greater than ±0.1 percent, and therefore
this proposal aligns with the
requirements in the industry standard.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
adopt the optional method specified in
AHRI 1500–2015 that allows for
calculating CO2 using a measured O2
value. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal to establish section 3 of
appendix A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR
431.76(d) of the current DOE test
procedure) to accommodate the option
to calculate CO2 using a measured O2
value.
3. ANSI Z21.47
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
the test method in 10 CFR 431.76 for
gas-fired CWAFs requires the use of
procedures contained in ANSI Z21.47–
2012 that are relevant to the steady-state
efficiency measurement (i.e., Sections
1.1, 2.1 through 2.6, 2.39, and 4.2.1 of
ANSI Z21.47–2012). 81 FR 26626,
26630. DOE noted that the majority of
the test standard provisions relevant to
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10734
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
DOE’s test procedure did not change in
the most up-to-date version of the
industry standard at that time, ANSI
Z21.47–2016. Id. The revisions that
were made were mostly editorial in
nature, including moving Section 2 in
ANSI Z21.47–2012 to Section 5 in ANSI
Z21.47–2016, among other structural
changes. In reviewing the 2012 and
2016 versions of the standard, DOE
identified one apparent typographical
error in the 2016 version.
Since the publication of the May 2020
RFI, an updated version of the ANSI
Z21.47 standard was published in 2021:
ANSI Z21.47–2021. DOE notes that the
only substantive difference between the
2016 and 2021 versions relevant to the
sections referenced by the DOE test
procedure is related to burner operating
characteristics tests specified in Section
5.4a of both ANSI Z21.47–2016 and
ANSI Z21.47–2021.
The updates to ANSI Z21.47–2012 in
ANSI Z21.47–2016 and ANSI Z21.47–
2021, as well as the scope of the
industry standard, are discussed in
further detail in the following sections.
As previously mentioned in section III.B
of this document, DOE is proposing to
amend the DOE test procedure to
reference ANSI Z21.47–2021, as it is the
most recent version of the industry test
procedure.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
a. Scope of ANSI Z21.47
DOE’s test procedure for CWAFs
currently includes reference to the
scope Section (section 1.1) of ANSI
Z21.47–2012. 10 CFR 431.76(c). As
previously stated in section III.B.1.a of
this document, DOE defines the scope
for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR
431.76(a), and DOE’s test procedure for
CWAFs requires use of ANSI Z21.47
only for provisions pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state
efficiency.
While DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–
2021 in its entirety, DOE is proposing to
explicitly identify the provisions of
ANSI Z21.47–2021 that are applicable to
the DOE test procedure for CWAFs,
which would not include the scope
section of that industry standard.
b. Typographical Error
Section 2.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47–2012
and the corresponding Section 5.3.2(c)
of ANSI Z21.47–2021 provide
installation requirements for horizontal
furnaces. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
noted that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI
Z21.47–2016 appears to contain a
typographical error by referencing
‘‘Figure 4, Enclosure types for alcove
and closet installation tests for
horizontal furnaces.’’ 85 FR 26626,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
26630. The title of Figure 4 in ANSI
Z21.47–2016 is ‘‘Enclosure types for
alcove and closet installation tests for
up-flow and down-flow furnaces,’’ and
as titled, Figure 4 applies only to upflow and down-flow furnaces. It appears
that the appropriate reference in Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47–2016 should
be to Figure 5, ‘‘Enclosed types for
alcove and closet installation tests for
horizontal furnaces.’’
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment on whether Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47–2016 should
refer to Figure 5 in the test procedure,
rather than Figure 4. Id. AHRI, Trane,
and Carrier all agreed that the reference
to Figure 4 was a typographical error,
and that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI
Z21.47–2016 should refer to Figure 5.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p.
2; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
In the update to the industry
standard, ANSI Z21.47–2021 corrected
this typographical error by having
Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) reference Figure 5.
Therefore, the typographical error in
ANSI Z21.47–2016 is no longer relevant
because DOE is now proposing to
incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–
2021.
c. Propane Nomenclature
DOE also asked for comment
regarding any differences between ANSI
Z21.47–2012 and ANSI Z21.47–2016,
and specifically whether there are any
differences other than those already
identified by DOE in the May 2020 RFI.
Id. In response to DOE’s request for
comment regarding any additional
differences between ANSI Z21.47–2012
and ANSI Z21.47–2016, AHRI and
Trane both noted that in ANSI Z21.47–
2016, the term ‘‘propane’’ is used in
place of the term ‘‘liquified petroleum
gas;’’ however, the commenters stated
that this change is not substantive.13
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p.
2) Carrier did not specifically comment
on this nomenclature change, although
it stated that there are no additional
updates in AHRI Z21.47–2016 that
would impact the DOE test procedure,
other than those already identified by
DOE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47–2021
also uses the term ‘‘propane’’ in place of
‘‘liquified petroleum gas.’’ DOE
tentatively agrees with AHRI and Trane
that the use of ‘‘propane’’ instead of
‘‘liquified petroleum gas’’ is for
13 Trane stated that ANSI Z21.47–2016 uses the
term ‘‘propane’’ in place of the term ‘‘liquified
natural gas’’. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2) However, DOE
notes that ANSI Z21.47–2012 uses the term
‘‘liquified petroleum gas,’’ not ‘‘liquified natural
gas,’’ and believes this was what Trane intended to
note.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
clarification only, and, therefore, does
not affect the test procedure. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference ASNI Z21.47–2021 and
specify use of the sections that
correspond to the sections currently
referenced in the DOE test procedure
(i.e., Sections 5.1 through 5.6, 5.40, and
7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021),), including
the language referring to ‘‘propane’’
instead of ‘‘liquefied petroleum gas.’’
d. Burner Operating Characteristics
Tests
Section 2.4a of ANSI Z21.47–2012 is
referenced in the current DOE test
procedure for CWAFs. 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2). This section states that
three separate tests (each specified in
Sections 2.9.1(a), 2.10.1, and 2.11.3,
respectively, of ANSI Z21.47–2012)
shall be performed prior to the
performance test to ensure that there is
no burner flashback and that the
ignition system is working properly.
Section 2.4a states that these three
burner operating characteristics tests
shall be conducted with test gas G (i.e.,
butane-air). ANSI Z21.47–2021 includes
a minor alteration to these provisions,
which allows for performing these tests
with a different test gas. Section 5.4a of
ANSI Z21.47–2021 (previously section
2.4a in ANSI Z21.47–2012) states that
the burner operating characteristics tests
shall be performed with either test gas
G or, at the manufacturer’s option for
testing premixed burners, test gas H
(i.e., propane-air). DOE notes that the
burner operating characteristics tests,
including the test gas used for these
tests, do not affect the TE measurement
of a CWAF. Therefore, DOE does not
have evidence to deviate from the
industry test procedure and proposes to
adopt Section 5.4 of ANSI Z21.47–2021,
including the previsions regarding the
use of test gas as an option when
performing the burner characteristics
tests.
DOE seeks comment on whether the
option provided in Section 5.4a of ANSI
Z21.47–2021 to use test gas H when
performing the three burner
characteristics tests would impact the
representativeness or burden of the
thermal efficiency test.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
DOE’s test procedure for gas-fired
condensing CWAFs references Sections
7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–2007. 10
CFR 431.76; 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE
did not identify any substantive changes
in the sections currently referenced by
the DOE test procedure in the update
from ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007 to ANSI/
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
ASHRAE 103–2017; however, DOE
asked for comment on whether there
were any differences between the two
standards that are relevant to the DOE
test procedure, and if so, how such
differences would impact the
representativeness of measurements and
the test burden of the DOE test
procedure for CWAFs, if adopted. Id.
AHRI commented that Sections
11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 in ANSI/ASHRAE
103–2017 were modified to replace a
fixed numerical value with
mathematical expressions, but that there
were no significant changes to the
clauses specified in the DOE test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Trane
stated that equations were modified
only in terms from numeric to
mathematical, but that this did not
change the outcomes of the
measurements. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that the two
equations in Sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017
have been modified. ANSI/ASHRAE
103–2007 includes variables in each
equation that are defined as constants in
the list of variables below each equation
(e.g., latent heat of vaporization equals
1053.3 Btu per pound mass (‘‘Btu/
lbm’’)); in contrast, ANSI/ASHRAE 103–
2017 inserts the constants directly into
each equation. DOE has tentatively
determined that the changes to the
equations referenced by DOE
(specifically those in clauses 11.3.7.1
and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103–
2017) are editorial in nature and do not
change the calculated values. As
previously mentioned in section III.B of
this document, DOE is proposing to
amend the DOE test procedure to
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017,
which would include these changes.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
C. ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’ Metric
As previously discussed, EPCA
requires that the test procedures for
CWAFs be those generally accepted
industry testing procedures or rating
procedures developed or recognized by
AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test
procedure or rating procedure is
amended, the Secretary shall amend the
test procedure for the product as
necessary to be consistent with the
amended industry test procedure or
rating procedure unless the Secretary
determines, by rule, published in the
Federal Register and supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meet the requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
representative use and test burden.14 (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
As discussed in further detail in the
sub-sections that immediately follow,
DOE has tentatively determined that a
test procedure that includes jacket loss
and accounts for part-load operation
would better produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs of CWAFs
during a representative average use
cycle. CWAFs are typically installed
outdoors and as a result jacket losses
can be a significant source of energy
loss. Further, for models with multiple
heating stages, performance can vary at
the maximum input heating stage as
compared to reduced input stage(s).
Therefore, DOE is proposing to account
for these factors by establishing a new
test procedure and metric for CWAFs,
termed ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’
(‘‘TE2’’), which would generally adopt
the same changes proposed for the
current test procedure at appendix A,
but would additionally account for
jacket losses and part load operation.
The proposed TE2 test procedure would
account for flue losses in the same
manner as the current TE metric. DOE
proposes to establish a new appendix B
to 10 CFR part 431, which would
contain the test method for TE2.
If adopted, manufacturers would be
permitted to make voluntary
representations using TE2. Mandatory
use of the TE2 test procedure would be
required at such time as compliance is
required with amended energy
conservation standards based on TE2,
should DOE adopt such standards. DOE
is, therefore, also proposing to retain the
test method for TE, which is proposed
to be modified as discussed elsewhere
in this document, in appendix A for use
until such time as TE2 becomes
mandatory.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
establish a new test procedure (i.e.,
appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for
CWAFs, which would generally adopt
the same changes proposed for the
current test procedure at appendix A
and account for flue losses in the same
manner as the current TE metric, but
14 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) requires that test
procedures be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use,
and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial
equipment (or class thereof) during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary),
and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(3) requires that if the test procedure
is a procedure for determining estimated annual
operating costs, such procedure shall provide that
such costs shall be calculated from measurements
of energy use in a representative average-use cycle
(as determined by the Secretary), and from
representative average unit costs of the energy
needed to operate such equipment during such
cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10735
would additionally account for jacket
losses and part load operation.
1. Jacket Loss
As discussed, the current energy
efficiency metric for CWAFs is TE. 10
CFR 431.77. TE for a CWAF is defined
in 10 CFR 431.72 as 100 percent minus
the percent flue loss, and is calculated,
as specified in 10 CFR 431.76(e), by
following the procedure specified in
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–2012 for
gas-fired CWAFs and Sections 11.1.4,
11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS–2000 for
oil-fired CWAFs.15 A test method and
calculations for determining the jacket
loss percentage (i.e., the hourly heat loss
through the jacket divided by the hourly
input and multiplied by 100) are
included in Section 2.39 of ANSI
Z21.47–2012 (and the corresponding
Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47–2021),
which is referenced in the DOE test
procedure. However, the jacket loss
percentage is not included in the
equation used to calculate TE.16
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested
comment on whether jacket loss should
be accounted for in the calculation of
TE. Specifically, DOE asked for
comment regarding information and
data on whether and to what extent
inclusion of jacket loss would provide
results that would more appropriately
reflect energy efficiency during a
representative average use cycle, and
also information and data as to the test
burden that would be associated with
potential inclusion of jacket loss as part
of the DOE CWAF test procedure. Id
ASAP, NEEA,17 and the CA IOUs each
supported adding jacket loss to the TE
metric, stating that jacket loss could
have a large impact on overall thermal
efficiency. (ASAP, No. 5 at p.1; NEEA,
No. 10 at p.3; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.4)
Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that
furnace jacket losses have significant
variations based on the installation
configuration (e.g., stand-alone vs.
embedded in a commercial unitary airconditioner (‘‘CUAC’’)) and the mode of
operation used for testing (e.g., full-load
15 10 CFR 431.76(f) (i.e., section 5 of appendix A)
includes a TE adjustment for condensing CWAFs.
This adjustment adds the additional heat gain
(expressed in a percent) from condensation of water
vapor to the TE and subtracts the heat loss
(expressed as a percent) due to the flue condensate
flowing down the drain.
16 DOE notes that Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–
2012 and Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 specify
a maximum jacket loss of 1.5 percent for any
furnace not covered by ‘‘Federal Energy Acts’’ (i.e.,
not regulated by DOE). This provision is not
referenced as part of the DOE test procedure.
17 DOE also received comment from NEEA
supporting the addition of jacket loss to the TE
metric in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
(NEEA, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0024 at pp. 6–
7)
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10736
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
vs. part-load), and suggested that DOE
consider using the method in ASHRAE
155P for determining commercial boiler
jacket loss for CWAFs, if this method is
repeatable and reproducible. (CA IOUs,
No. 8 at p. 4) NEEA stated that its
energy modeling showed that improved
insulation, decreased casing leakage,
and decreased damper leakage can save
up to 11 percent of annual energy
consumption, and that this magnitude
of energy savings is comparable with
that of a condensing secondary heat
exchanger, which is listed as ‘‘max
tech’’ in the current CWAF energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
NEEA also stated that although CWAFs
are separately regulated from CUACs,
the two types of equipment are often
contained within the same rooftop unit
(‘‘RTU’’), and that enclosure
improvements that would improve
efficiency of CWAFs would also
improve efficiency for CUACs. (NEEA,
No. 10 at pp. 3–4) ASAP stated that
since the impact of improved insulation
is not currently considered in the test
procedure, two CWAF units could have
the same efficiency rating and yet
provide significantly different
performance if one unit had better
insulation than the other. ASAP further
explained that capturing the impact of
improved insulation would provide
testing results that would better reflect
the efficiency of CWAFs during a
representative average use cycle, and, in
turn, provide better information to
purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1)
AHRI, Carrier,18 and Trane opposed
incorporating jacket loss into the TE
metric and asserted that it would have
a minimal effect on performance. (AHRI,
No. 7 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 4 at pp. 1–
2; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane
stated that including jacket loss in the
TE calculation would result in minimal
change in TE and would lower the TE
of the CWAF. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5
Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) Carrier also stated
that for larger commercial equipment,
factory installed options are available
that can increase the size of the cabinet
downstream of the furnace section, and
that test burden on manufacturers
would increase significantly if all
options that impact jacket size are
required to be tested. Carrier asserted
that DOE would have to demonstrate the
energy benefit since jacket losses are
relatively low and their inclusion would
result in increased test burden, different
design requirements, and significantly
18 DOE also received comment from Carrier
opposing this in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI,
similarly, stating that jacket loss would have a
minimal effect on performance, and that this
minimal affect does not justify its inclusion the TE.
(Carrier, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0013 at p. 5)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
higher cost for the manufacturer and the
end customer if the minimum efficiency
standards did not materially change.
(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
On May 12, 2020, DOE published an
energy conservation standards RFI
(‘‘May 2020 ECS RFI’’) for air-cooled
CUACs, commercial unitary heat
pumps, and CWAFs. 85 FR 27941. DOE
received multiple comments from
stakeholders in response to the May
2020 ECS RFI that are related to jacket
loss and that are relevant to DOE’s
consideration of whether to incorporate
jacket losses into the test procedure for
CWAFs. Specifically, the Joint
Advocates recommended that DOE
amend the CWAF test procedure to
include effects of improved
insulation.19 (Joint Advocates, EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0042–0023 at p. 3) AHRI
stated that it does not see a justification
to include jacket loss in the measured
energy efficiency, and that there would
be minimal, if any, change in the usable
heat provided to the end user if jacket
loss is added to the TE calculation.
(AHRI, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–
0014 at p. 4) Goodman stated that jacket
losses should not be included in the
CWAF test procedure, and that
inclusion of jacket loss would require
new and more difficult testing and
increased burden. (Goodman, EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0042–0017 at pp. 2–3)
Lastly, Goodman recommended DOE
not include jacket loss in the DOE test
procedure because ASHRAE 90.1–2019
requires that CWAF jacket loss not
exceed 0.75 percent of the CWAF input
rating, and therefore any effect on
measured performance would be small
enough to not justify the added burden.
Id.
Regarding Goodman’s reference to the
jacket loss requirement for CWAFs in
ASHRAE 90.1–2019, DOE notes that as
part of a final rule published on May 16,
2012 (‘‘May 2012 final rule’’) amending
energy conservation standards and test
procedures for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating
equipment, DOE addressed the
ASHRAE 90.1 requirement pertaining to
jacket loss.20 In the May 2012 final rule,
DOE determined that if ASHRAE adds
a prescriptive requirement for
equipment for which an efficiency level
is already specified (e.g., a jacket loss
19 The Join Advocates include the following
organizations: Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships.
20 The version of ASHRAE 90.1 that was available
at the time of the May 2012 final rule (i.e., ASHRAE
90.1–2010) includes the same 0.75-percent jacket
loss requirement that is in ASHRAE 90.1–2019.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirement in addition to a TE
requirement), DOE does not have the
authority to use a dual descriptor for a
single equipment type. 77 FR 28928,
28937. Specifically, DOE explained that
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the
Secretary has authority to amend the
energy conservation standards for
specified equipment, but under 42
U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute’s definition
of the term ‘‘energy conservation
standard’’ is limited to: (A) A
performance standard that prescribes a
minimum level of energy efficiency or a
maximum quantity of energy use for a
product; or (B) a design requirement for
a product. DOE stated that the language
of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a
performance standard or a single design
standard. As such, DOE concluded that
a standard that establishes both a
performance standard and a design
requirement is beyond the scope of
DOE’s legal authority. Id.21
Additionally, DOE previously
considered including jacket loss in the
TE calculation in a NOPR published on
December 13, 1999. 64 FR 69598, 69601
(‘‘December 1999 NOPR’’). In the
December 1999 NOPR, DOE did not
propose to include jacket loss in the TE
calculation, having determined that,
consistent with adopting industry test
standards referenced in ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1–1989, the statute’s intent
is to assign the same meaning to the
term ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ as its
definition in the corresponding
referenced standards, i.e., 100 percent
minus percent flue loss. Id. DOE’s
determination in the December 1999
NOPR was informed by a public
workshop held on April 14 and 15,
1998, and what DOE understood to be
21 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.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
the consensus of the participants that
TE should not include jacket loss,
because ANSI Z21.47 defined TE
without jacket loss. Id. As such, DOE
acknowledges that the TE as currently
determined under ANSI Z21.47 does not
include jacket loss even if it is a
requirement of ASHRAE 90.1
As noted, DOE is generally required to
adopt a test procedure for CWAFs that
is consistent with the generally accepted
industry testing procedures developed
or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE,
as referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further,
if such industry test procedure (i.e., the
test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1) is updated, DOE must
amend its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that such
amended test procedure would not meet
the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)
and (3) related to representative use and
test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and
(C)) Additionally, EPCA also requires
that DOE periodically evaluate the test
procedures for CWAFs 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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
For the reasons that follow, DOE has
tentatively determined that
incorporating a jacket loss measurement
into the test procedure and metric for
CWAFs would improve the
representativeness of the test procedure
by capturing an attribute of CWAFs
other than combustion efficiency (i.e.,
jacket loss) that can have a substantive
impact on the overall energy use of
CWAFs.
The current TE is essentially a
measure of combustion efficiency.
However, the energy efficiency of the
equipment is influenced by factors in
addition to combustion efficiency (i.e.,
jacket loss). Jacket loss contributes to
the overall energy use of a CWAF and
is, therefore, one of the parameters that
determines a CWAF’s overall efficiency.
Heat loss through the cabinet (i.e., jacket
loss) is proportional to the thickness of
the insulation and/or insulative material
used. DOE tentatively agrees with ASAP
that CWAFs with the same TE, as
determined under the current DOE test
procedure, could have different
performance in the field if one unit has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
different insulation than the other. DOE
also notes that the vast majority of
CWAFs are installed within CUACs
located on rooftops, and that these
outdoor installations will result in
greater jacket loss than CWAFs installed
indoors because of the colder ambient
air. As such, DOE tentatively agrees
with the CA IOUs that performance of
a CWAF will vary depending on
installation location because of different
levels of jacket loss. Differences in
performance based on differences in
jacket loss are not captured by the
current DOE test procedure and metric.
Incorporating jacket loss into a TE2
metric will therefore account for
differences in CWAF insulation.
Additionally, weighting jacket loss
based on installation location, which
DOE discusses more in the following
paragraphs, will account for the
differences in jacket loss across various
installation locations.
DOE is proposing that, for CWAFs
that are designed for outdoor
installation (including but not limited to
CWAFs that are weatherized, or
approved for resistance to wind, rain, or
snow) or designed for indoor
installation in an unheated space (i.e.,
isolated combustion systems),22 jacket
loss shall be measured in accordance
with the Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47–
2021. DOE is proposing to multiply this
measured jacket loss by jacket loss
factors to account for differences in
installation location. DOE proposes that
a jacket loss factor of 1.7 for CWAFs
designed for indoor installation in an
unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion system), or 3.3 for CWAFs
designed for outdoor installation
(including, but not limited to, CWAFs
that are weatherized, or approved for
resistance to wind, rain, or snow) be
multiplied by the measured jacket loss
before subtracting the product from
thermal efficiency (i.e., TE2 is
calculated as 100 percent minus flue
and jacket loss, when the jacket loss is
the measured jacket loss multiplied by
the jacket loss factor). DOE is also
proposing that the jacket loss shall be
zero for CWAFs designed for
installation indoors within a heated
space because the heat loss through the
CWAF’s jacket would go directly into
the heated space. DOE notes that this
approach is consistent with the
approach taken in appendix N to
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 for
measuring AFUE in residential furnaces,
which references ASHRAE 103.
22 This description of a CWAF designed for
outdoor installation is consistent with a residential
weatherized warm air furnace specified in 10 CFR
430.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10737
Therefore, DOE has tentatively
determined these are the appropriate
jacket loss factors to use based on the
values found in Section 11.2.11 of
ASHRAE 103–2017, and is proposing to
use these factors in newly proposed
appendix B.23
As previously mentioned, DOE
references Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–
2012 (now Section 5.40 in ANSI
Z21.47–21), which includes a test
procedure for determining jacket loss.
DOE does not currently reference Annex
J of ANSI Z21.47–2012, which includes
the equation used to calculate jacket
loss. Annex J also includes Figures J.1
and J.2 which are used to determine the
coefficient of convection and coefficient
of radiation for the surface, which are
two coefficients used in the calculation
of jacket loss. DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference the jacket loss
test procedure specified in Section 5.40
of ANSI Z21.47–2021, which includes a
reference to Annex J of ANSI Z21.47–
2021, for both gas-fired and oil-fired
CWAFs. Specifically, DOE is proposing
to adopt this test procedure for
measuring jacket loss when testing to
newly proposed appendix B to
determine TE2.
To the extent that manufacturers
participate in the industry certification
program under ASHRAE 90.1, such
manufacturers should already be
measuring jacket loss according to the
test procedure proposed in this NOPR
due to the prescriptive jacket loss
requirement in ASHRAE 90.1. Based on
a review of models on the market, DOE
found the majority of CWAFs indicate
in product literature that they comply
with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1,
which indicates that many CWAFs are
already tested for jacket loss.
DOE is proposing to adopt the
industry test standard for determining
jacket loss that DOE has tentatively
determined is currently being used by
industry, and as such would not be
unduly burdensome. Additionally,
testing according to appendix B would
be mandatory only at such time as
compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on
TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
Therefore, DOE proposes to incorporate
jacket loss in the proposed TE2 metric.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
require jacket loss be measured when
testing CWAFs designed for outdoor
23 DOE notes that the jacket loss factor in Section
11.2.11 of ASHRAE 103–2017 for equipment
intended for indoor installation within a heated
space is 0.0. As such, jacket loss would be
calculated as zero. Therefore, as previously
mentioned, DOE is proposing the jacket loss would
be assumed to be zero for CWAFs intended for
indoor installation within a heated space.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10738
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
installation and designed for indoor
installation within an unheated space
when determining TE2 pursuant to
newly proposed appendix B, and on its
proposed method for measuring jacket
loss. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs
intended for indoor installation within
a heated space would be assumed to be
zero, and on its proposed jacket loss
factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor
installation within an unheated space.
2. Part-Load Performance
In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE
received comments from NEEA and the
CA IOUs encouraging DOE to adopt a
metric and test procedure that account
for operation at part load. (NEEA, No. 10
pp. 1–2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA
and the CA IOUs both asserted that
CWAFs spend the majority of their time
in a low fire mode (i.e., part load) and
that adopting a metric that includes part
load would better represent the
operation of CWAFs in the field. Id.
More specifically, NEEA asserted that
CWAFs often spend 10 to 20 percent of
their time at high fire mode (i.e., full
load), and that DOE should update its
test procedure to include reduced firing
rates (i.e., part-load) and seasonal
performance so that the test procedure
is more representative of an average use
cycle.24 NEEA recommended a seasonal
metric be used, asserting that jacket loss,
damper leakage, and fan performance
would be affected by CWAFs installed
in colder climates. (NEEA, No. 10 p.2)
NEEA also commented that other DOE
test procedures for HVAC equipment
have been transitioning to measure partload and seasonal performance, and that
the CWAF test procedure should
likewise be updated. (NEEA, No. 10 p.
1) The CA IOUs stated that cyclic losses
due to cycling of the burners negatively
impacts efficiency of a CWAF, and that
accounting for this would increase the
representativeness of the test procedure.
(CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 1–2)
AHRI commented that any additional
requirements beyond the current test
procedure provisions would be a burden
to manufacturers, and that any changes
that affect testing or calculations are
likely to be overly burdensome
compared to any benefits, due to what
AHRI characterized as the relatively
small market for these appliances.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 77)
DOE reviewed the current CWAF
market and found that the vast majority
of CWAFs certified to DOE have two or
24 NEEA referenced the following energy model:
Energy Modeling of Commercial Gas Rooftop Units
in Support of CSA P.8 Standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
more stages of heating. DOE notes that
CWAFs with two or more stages can
operate at reduced firing rates to meet
the building load. Under the current
DOE test procedure, TE reflects the
efficiency of the burner and the
efficiency of the heat exchanger at full
load. When a CWAF burner operates at
a reduced input rate (i.e., part load), the
ratio of heat exchanger surface area to
burner input rate is increased (in
comparison to operation at full load),
which theoretically should increase the
efficiency of the CWAF compared to
operating at full load, if other aspects of
operation are consistent. However,
depending on the air-fuel ratio or other
factors impacting combustion efficiency,
the combustion efficiency could
decrease, and therefore, the change in
performance, including whether
efficiency is improved or reduced at
part-load, could vary from model to
model. Therefore, CWAF part-load
performance has the potential to be
substantively different from full-load
performance and including part-load
performance in the measurement of
CWAF efficiency would allow the
efficiency metric to account for this
potential difference and be more
representative. To provide for measured
test results that are more representative
of the average use cycle of CWAFs that
are two-stage and modulating burner
units (i.e., CWAFs that operate at less
than full load), DOE proposes to include
a part-load measurement in the test
procedure proposed at newly proposed
appendix B. DOE has tentatively
determined that including a part-load
test procedure within the DOE test
procedure would better capture how
CWAFs operate in the field and would
be more representative of the
performance of CWAFs during an
average use cycle, particularly for
models that have two or more stages of
heating. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
include both part-load and full-load
operation tests in the newly proposed
appendix B.
Specifically, DOE proposes to require
that, for two-stage or modulating burner
models, the flue loss of the unit under
test be determined as specified in
section 2 of appendix A (formerly 10
CFR 431.76(c)) at both the maximum
and minimum input rates on the
nameplate of the unit. The jacket loss
(as described in section III.C.1 of this
document) would be determined at the
maximum input rate and optionally be
determined at the minimum input rate.
If the jacket loss were determined only
at the maximum input rate, it would be
assigned an equivalent value at the
minimum input rate. TE2 would then be
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
calculated as the average of the
efficiencies determined at both the
maximum and minimum input rates
using the flue loss and jacket loss
determined at each input rate.
Averaging the performance at the
maximum and minimum input rate
weights both full-load and part-load
CWAF operation equally (i.e.,
representing CWAF operation at full
load 50 percent of the time and part
load 50 percent of the time). DOE
considered the relationship between
full-load operation and part-load
operation presented in the comments
from NEEA. However, the 10 to 20
percent estimate of operation at full load
referenced by NEEA was based on data
for climate regions represented by
Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. DOE
has tentatively determined that
operating conditions represented by
these climate zones are not
representative of the United States,
which includes more temperate climate
zones.
DOE also considered relying on the
part-load and full-load burner operating
hour calculations for two-stage and
modulating furnaces specified in
Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103–
2017. However, DOE tentatively
determined that this approach would
not be representative because the
calculations specified in Appendix C of
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 include
assumptions that are specific to
residential furnaces (e.g., national
average heating load hours) that may not
be representative for CWAFs. For
example, CWAFs may operate more
frequently during business hours,
whereas a residential furnace may
operate more frequently during offbusiness hours when people are more
likely to be at home.
DOE tentatively finds that CWAFs
spend a substantive amount of time in
part-load. Absent nationally
representative data or information to
support weighting factors for full-load
and part-load performance that are more
representative of an average use cycle,
DOE has tentatively determined that
weighting both equally is appropriate at
this time, however DOE seeks comment
on this tentative determination.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
add a part-load test procedure to be
incorporated into the newly proposed
TE2 metric. DOE also seeks comment on
its proposal to calculate TE2 by
averaging performance at the maximum
and minimum fire rate and seeks and
any related data. DOE also requests
comment on alternate weighting values,
including those discussed, that may be
more nationally representative of an
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
average use, along with any relevant
data.
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
the DOE test procedure for CWAFs does
not include any measurement of
electrical consumption in its
determination of the efficiency of
CWAFs, including electrical
consumption of blowers/fans, controls,
or other auxiliary electrical
consumption. 85 FR 26626, 26632. DOE
explained that CWAFs are typically part
of a single package that also includes
air-conditioning equipment, and that
the test method and metrics for
commercial air-conditioning and
heating equipment (i.e., integrated
energy efficiency ratio (‘‘IEER’’))
accounts for the electrical consumption
of the blower; as such, the electrical
consumption of the blower has not been
included in the CWAF test method. Id.
DOE noted that any auxiliary electrical
consumption associated only with the
furnace operation when heating is not
accounted for in any metric. Id.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment on whether it should consider
including the electrical consumption of
CWAFs in the CWAF efficiency metric
or test procedure, as well as on the
merits and burdens of such approach.
Id. DOE also asked for comment on
which components’ electrical
consumption would be appropriate to
include, noting that the electrical
consumption of the CWAF blower is
typically factored into other commercial
equipment efficiency metrics and test
procedures. Id.
ASAP, the CA IOUs, and NEEA
recommended that DOE account for
electrical consumption of the CWAF.
(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2; ASAP, No. 5
at p. 1; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) More
specifically, ASAP urged DOE to ensure
that all electrical consumption
associated with CWAFs (including
CWAF auxiliary electrical consumption)
is captured in either the CWAF test
procedure or the test procedure for
CUACs. Specifically, regarding auxiliary
electrical consumption, ASAP stated
that capturing auxiliary electrical
consumption would better reflect the
efficiency of CWAFs during a
representative average use cycle, thus
providing better information to
purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP
also stated that the term sheet from the
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee
(‘‘ASRAC’’) working group for CUACs
and CWAFs contained a
recommendation that DOE amend the
test procedure for CUACs to better
capture total fan energy use, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
the energy use associated with the
supply fan operation when the unit is in
heating mode. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) The
CA IOUs also noted that the ASRAC
term sheet includes a recommendation
to update the CUAC test procedure to
‘‘better represent total fan energy use,
including considering (a) alternative
external static pressures; and (b)
operation other than mechanical cooling
and heating.’’ (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1–2;
CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2–3) Similarly,
NEEA stated that electrical energy
should be considered in total energy
consumption in all operating modes,
citing that RTUs spend the majority of
their time in ventilation mode, and that
electrical energy consumption of an
RTU is 4 to 11 percent of total seasonal
energy consumption. (NEEA, No. 10 at
p. 4) Additionally, NEEA stated that the
current CWAF test procedure does not
capture many energy efficient features
that are currently available on the
market and, therefore, does not
effectively allow manufacturers to
distinguish more efficient equipment.25
NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider
a calculation-based test procedure to
include other energy using components
and operating modes. (NEEA, No. 10 at
pp. 3–4) DOE also received comment
from the Joint Advocates in response to
the May 2020 ECS RFI, recommending
DOE amend the CWAF test procedure to
capture auxiliary electrical
consumption. (Joint Advocates, EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0042–0023 at p. 3)
AHRI, Carrier, and Trane
recommended against including the
electrical consumption of CWAFs in the
efficiency metric or test procedure.
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p.
4; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that
the electrical energy consumption of
CWAF components is minimal
compared to the fossil fuel energy used
for heating. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane
explained that combustion fan motor
wattage is very small as a percentage of
these commercial furnaces (Trane, No. 9
at p. 4) More specifically, AHRI stated
that the energy consumption of a
combustion fan is a fraction of a percent
of the total energy consumption. Carrier
similarly asserted that the power draw
of the inducer fan used to create the
draft through the furnace is minimal
compared to the energy of combustion.
(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane
asserted that the extra burden from
retesting and certifying to a new metric
is not worth adding electrical
25 NEEA stated that these efficient components
include low leak dampers, improved insulation or
thermally broken insulation, variable speed fans,
economizing capability, improved controls, demand
control ventilation, modulating heat/high turndown
furnaces, and heat recovery. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3)
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10739
consumption into a new efficiency
metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No.
9 at p. 4) AHRI and Carrier noted that
CWAFs are often sold as part of a
packaged unit (i.e., within a CUAC), and
that the blower and fans are included in
the performance measurement of the
CUAC. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Carrier No.
4 at p. 3) AHRI also noted that the total
air-conditioning hours are far greater
than the total heating hours. (AHRI, No.
7 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with stakeholders that
CWAFs are typically installed within a
CUAC, and that the energy consumption
of the supply air fan is captured in the
current CUAC test procedure. DOE
notes that the energy consumption of
the supply air fan during furnace-only
operation is not captured within the
CUAC test procedure; however, DOE
has tentatively determined that such
energy consumption would be better
addressed in a future amendment to the
CUAC test procedure, rather than also
integrating supply fan consumption into
the CWAF test procedure. This
approach would allow for the supply air
fan’s energy consumption to be captured
in a single test procedure. Similarly,
DOE notes that many of the components
that were referenced by NEEA are
related to CUAC performance. As such,
DOE has tentatively determined that
these components would be better
addressed a future CUAC test procedure
amendment. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined not to include
supply fan energy consumption in the
CWAF metric.
DOE also considered whether to
include the electrical energy
consumption of other auxiliary
components of CWAFs within the DOE
test procedure. In a final rule published
on May 4, 2016, amending the energy
conservation standards for CWAFs, DOE
analyzed the auxiliary energy
consumption of CWAFs, finding that on
average, auxiliary power consumption
for the draft inducer was 100 W for gasfired CWAFs and 220 W for oil-fired
CWAFs. (See section 7B.3 of the Final
Rule TSD, EERE–2013–BT–STD–0021–
0050.) DOE also estimated the power
consumption of other auxiliary
components (e.g., 25 W for spark
ignition). Id. This auxiliary power
consumption, as compared to the fossil
fuel energy input rate, represents a
fraction of a percent of the total energy
consumption of a CWAF. As such,
improvements in electrical power
consumption, if integrated into TE,
would have a negligible impact on the
measured energy efficiency of a CWAF.
DOE has tentatively determined that
incorporating electrical consumption
into the measurement of CWAF
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10740
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
efficiency would not substantially
improve the representativeness of the
test procedure and would increase
testing burden. DOE also notes that
including electrical consumption in the
determination of CWAF efficiency
would be a significant deviation from
how CWAF efficiency is currently
measured, for which DOE must
demonstrate ‘‘clear and convincing
evidence’’ that such change would more
fully comply with the requirements of
EPCA. Because DOE has tentatively
concluded it is unlikely that inclusion
of electrical energy in the TE metric
would impact the thermal efficiency
rating, DOE tentatively concludes that
such a change would not meet the clear
and convincing threshold established by
DOE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to
update the CWAF test procedure to
include electrical consumption.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and
Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Multiple Vent Hoods
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
neither the DOE test procedure nor the
ANSI Z21.47 test procedure specifies
how to perform the flue temperature
measurement if a unit has multiple vent
hoods, and that models are currently
available on the market with multiple
vent hoods. 85 FR 26626, 26631. DOE
notes that in this NOPR, as in the May
2020 RFI, DOE’s references to a ‘‘vent
hood’’ are synonymous with a ‘‘vent
pipe.’’
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested
comment on how CWAFs with more
than one vent hood are currently tested
and whether it should consider adding
provisions in the DOE test procedures to
address measuring the flue gas
temperature of a unit with multiple vent
hoods. DOE also asked how best to
measure flue gas temperature in such
units. Id.
AHRI stated that the manufacturers’
installation instructions should include
information regarding the use of
multiple vents and each vent’s
functionality. AHRI stated that if the
vent hood modules are the same size,
the results are averaged; however, if
they are different sizes, the test results
for each vent hood should be adjusted
accordingly before averaging the results.
AHRI stated that, for example, if one
vent is intended to exhaust two-thirds of
the flue product and the second is
intended to exhaust the remaining onethird, then this should be specified in
the installation instructions, and a
weighted average used to determine the
flue gas temperature. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
5)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
Trane stated that DOE should use the
instructions in both the installation
operation manuals as well as the
supplemental testing instruction (‘‘STI’’)
supplied when a model is certified to
DOE for determining how to measure
flue gas for models with multiple vent
hoods. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier stated that the procedure it
uses for models with multiple vent
hoods is to analyze combustion
products and measure flue temperature
separately in each vent hood, and then
use the averaged data of all vents to
calculate TE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE tentatively agrees that results
should be measured in each vent hood
and weighted proportionally to the size
of each vent hood when calculating TE.
For units with multiple vent hoods of
the same size, this approach would
result in the measurements being
averaged. Therefore, in order to ensure
consistency between tests, DOE is
proposing to add instructions to clarify
the test method for models with
multiple vent hoods. DOE proposes that
measurements used to calculate TE (e.g.,
flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses), be made separately for each
vent hood, and that they are weighted
proportionally to the size of each vent
hood when calculating flue loss.
Further, DOE proposes that test
requirements, such as determining
when equilibrium conditions occur
based on the flue gas temperature, are
determined based these weighted
measurements. This proposal is
predicated on the assumption that the
amount (i.e., mass flow) of flue exhaust
exiting each vent hood is proportional
to the hood size. DOE recognizes that
vent hood ‘‘size’’ may be measured in
various ways, and therefore is proposing
to specify that vent hoods size would be
determined by calculating the outlet
face area of the vent hood. As noted,
DOE is proposing this additional
procedure for clarification and to
improve test repeatability, as ANSI
Z21.47–2021 does not address flue
temperature measurements in CWAFs
with multiple vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
provide instructions in the DOE test
procedure for testing units with
multiple vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its
assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent
hood is proportional to the size of the
vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks
comment on its proposal to compare
vent hood outlet face areas to determine
vent hood size.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Vent Space Limitations
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
Section 2.16 of ANSI Z21.47–2012 and
Section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47–2016 both
specify measuring the flue gas
temperature in the vent pipe using nine
individual thermocouples placed in
specific locations; however, these
sections do not provide guidance on
how to measure the flue gas temperature
if the vent size constrains the space
where the thermocouples are to be
placed to the point that normal
operation of the unit is inhibited when
nine thermocouples are installed. 85 FR
26626, 26631–26632. DOE notes this is
also true of Section 5.16 in ANSI
Z21.47–2021. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE
noted that a vent may be so small (if, for
example, a unit has multiple vents) that
it is not practical to measure the flue gas
temperature using nine thermocouples.
DOE also explained that during testing
of one unit with a particularly small
vent hood, DOE found that placing
nine 26 thermocouples was not practical
due to space limitations. 81 FR 26626,
26631–26632.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment on how CWAFs with vent size
constraints are currently tested and
whether DOE should consider adding
provisions in the DOE test procedure to
address measuring the flue gas
temperature when space limitations
preclude the use of nine thermocouples.
DOE also asked how best to measure
flue gas temperature in such units. 81
FR 26626, 26632.
AHRI stated that the manufacturer’s
test instructions may specify that the
number of thermocouples be limited
due to space constraints within the draft
hood. In such instances, the testing
laboratory will follow the
manufacturer’s test instructions for setup. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane stated
that it believes the manufacturer will
communicate how measurements were
performed either in the STI or
installation manual to achieve the
performance metric rating that is
certified, and that DOE should follow
those instructions. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier acknowledged that, at times, it is
impossible to fit nine thermocouples
adequately in a smaller vent and stated
that it uses the procedure from ANSI/
ASHRAE 103, which specifies the
number of thermocouples depending on
26 In the May 2020 RFI, DOE stated that DOE
found that placing more than four thermocouples
for that particular test unit was not practical due to
space limitations. 85 FR 26626, 26632. However,
this was a typographical error; DOE intended to
state that placing nine thermocouples (not more
than four) was not practical in this instance due to
space limitations.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
the diameter of the vent. Carrier further
stated that ANSI/ASHRAE 103 requires
five thermocouples for vents 2 inches in
diameter and smaller, nine
thermocouples for vents greater than 2
inches in diameter, and 17
thermocouples for a stack measurement.
(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
In order to ensure consistency and
repeatability in the application of the
test method for models with small vent
hoods, DOE recognizes the need to
specify how to perform the DOE test
procedure when nine thermocouples do
not fit inside the vent hood. Although
AHRI and Trane suggest allowing the
manufacturer to specify how the
thermocouples should be installed, this
could lead to inconsistent test set-up
and results for models with small vents
if manufacturers choose different
approaches for testing. Therefore, DOE
is proposing to align its test procedure
with ASHRAE 103–2017. More
specifically, DOE is proposing to specify
in the DOE test procedure that when
testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the
flue gas temperatures shall be measured
in the vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples when the vent hood is
larger than 2 inches in diameter and
may optionally be measured using five
individual thermocouples when the
vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in
diameter.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal
to specify in the DOE test procedure that
when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs,
the flue gas temperatures shall be
measured in the vent hood using nine
individual thermocouples, or if the vent
hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
five thermocouples may optionally be
used.
3. Input Rate Tolerance
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that
its test procedure for gas-fired CWAFs
references the test method in ANSI
Z21.47, and that the thermal efficiency
test in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47
requires that the test be conducted at
normal inlet pressure and at 100 percent
of normal input rate (i.e., the maximum
hourly Btu input rating specified by the
manufacturer). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(1).
DOE noted that no tolerance is provided
on the input rate in section 2.39, so
when taken literally, this provision
could be interpreted to require that the
firing rate be exactly 100 percent of the
nominal input rate. DOE further noted
that other types of fossil-fuel-fired
equipment such as commercial
packaged boilers, commercial water
heaters, residential water heaters,
residential furnaces, and residential
boilers require the input rate during
testing to be within ±2 percent of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
nameplate input rate. 85 FR 26626,
26631.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for
comment on whether industry uses a
tolerance when testing to ANSI Z21.47,
and if so, what tolerance is used. DOE
also asked whether a tolerance should
be specified for the input rate during
testing of gas-fired CWAFs, and if so,
what tolerance would be appropriate.
Id.
Carrier stated that it uses a minor
plus-and-minus tolerance on input rate
and that it understands that this
approach is not included in ANSI
Z21.47, but it has been used on furnace
testing at Carrier for many years.27 (No.
4 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI both
commented that section 5.4.4 28 of ANSI
Z21.47–2016 includes a ±2 percent
tolerance on input rate. (AHRI, No. 7 at
p. 5; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) The CA IOUs
recommend including a tolerance of ±2
percent of rated input for gas-fired
CWAFs, consistent with the commercial
boiler test methods described in AHRI
1500–2015. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4.)
DOE notes that Sections 5.5.4 of ANSI
Z21.47–2016 and 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47–
2021 both specify a ±2 percent tolerance
on the manufacturer’s specified hourly
Btu input rating, and that the same ±2
percent input rate tolerance is also
specified in Section 2.5.4 of ANSI
Z21.47–2012, which is currently
incorporated by reference in the current
DOE test procedure. As discussed in
section III.B.3 of this document, DOE is
proposing to reference the Sections of
ANSI Z21.47–2021 that correspond to
the sections in ANSI Z21.47–2012 that
are currently referenced, including
Section 5.5 of ANSI Z21.47–2021. This
proposal, therefore, incorporates Section
5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47–2021, which
includes the ±2 percent tolerance on the
manufacturer’s specified hourly Btu
input rating.
4. Flue Loss Determination
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–2012
and Section 5.40 ANSI Z21.47–2021
reference Annex I for the determination
of flue loss that is used in the TE
calculation. Annex I includes two
methods for determining flue loss—one
method that uses a calculation, and one
method that uses nomographs shown in
Figures I.1 and I.2 of ANSI Z21.47–
2021. The nomograph method may only
be used when the heating value, specific
gravity, and flue gas CO2 of a CWAF fall
27 Carrier did not provide a specific value for the
tolerance it uses for CWAF testing.
28 DOE understands commenters to have intended
to reference section 5.5.4 as there is no section 5.4.4
in ANSI Z21.47–2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10741
within a specified range.29 If these
conditions are met, either calculation
method may be used. DOE notes that the
option to use either method may result
in issues with repeatability if the
determination of flue loss varies when
using each method. Therefore, DOE is
proposing in section 4 of appendix A
(formerly 10 CFR 431.76(e)) that the
calculation method must be used when
determining flue loss. DOE is proposing
use of the calculation method rather
than the nomograph method because the
nomograph method is not applicable for
all tests, and the calculation method is
likely to provide better repeatability by
eliminating subjective differences in
interpreting the nomograph.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to
require the calculation method specified
in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47–2021 be
used when determining flue loss, and
not the nomograph method.
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization,
and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend
the existing test procedure for CWAF for
determining TE by incorporating by
reference the most up-to-date versions
of the industry standards currently
referenced in the DOE test procedure,
and by providing additional detail for
the test setup for models with multiple
vent hoods and models with vent hoods
having space limitations. DOE has
tentatively determined that these
proposed amendments for determining
TE would not be unduly burdensome
for manufacturers to conduct, and that
the proposed test procedures for this
equipment are consistent with the
industry test procedure updates. DOE
has tentatively determined that the
proposed amendments to the test
procedure for determining TE would
improve the representativeness,
accuracy, and reproducibility of the test
results and would not be unduly
burdensome for manufacturers to
conduct. DOE expects that the proposed
test procedure in appendix A for
measuring and TE would not increase
testing costs.
DOE also is proposing to establish a
new TE2 metric and establish a new
appendix B, which would include the
test procedure for determining TE2.
DOE estimates that the additional test
cost due to the additional part-load test
and jacket loss test required for the TE2
29 Heating value for natural gas or propane must
be 970–1100 Btu/ft3 or 2466–2542 Btu/ft3,
respectively. Specific gravity for natural gas or
propane must be 0.57–0.70 or 1.522–15.74,
respectively. Ultimate carbon dioxide for natural
gas or propane must be 11.7–12.2% or 13.73–
13.82%, respectively.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10742
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
metric would be $2,200, compared to
the current DOE test procedure, which
DOE estimates to be $4,200 at a thirdparty laboratory (i.e., a total estimated
cost of $6,400 per tested unit for the
amended TE2 test procedure).
Therefore, assuming two units are tested
per basic model,30 DOE estimates the
testing cost associated with the newly
proposed appendix B test procedure to
be $12,800 per basic model.
In accordance with 10 CFR 429.41,
CWAF manufacturers may elect to use
an alternative efficiency determination
method (‘‘AEDM’’) to rate models for the
TE2 metric, which significantly reduces
testing costs to industry. DOE estimates
the per-manufacturer cost to develop
and validate an AEDM to determine TE2
for CWAF equipment to be $17,300.
DOE estimates a cost of $46 per basic
model for determining energy efficiency
using a validated AEDM.31
Additionally, DOE has tentatively
determined that the proposed appendix
B test procedure and TE2 calculation
would alter the measured energy
efficiency of a CWAF.
As previously discussed, the
proposed test procedure provisions
regarding TE2 would not be mandatory
unless and until compliance is required
with amended energy conservation
standards that rely on TE2. Because
DOE is not referencing a prevailing
industry test procedure for
determination of TE2, DOE expects that
the updated DOE test procedure in
appendix B would increase the testing
burden on CWAF manufacturers if use
of appendix B were required in the
future. However, DOE has tentatively
determined that the test procedure
amendments, if finalized, would not
require manufacturers to redesign any of
the covered equipment, would not
require changes to how the equipment
is manufactured, and would not impact
the utility of the equipment.
DOE seeks comment on its
understanding of the impact of the test
procedure proposals in this NOPR,
specifically with respect to DOE’s
30 Per the sampling requirements specified at 10
CFR 429.11(b), manufacturers are required to test at
least two units to determine the rating for a basic
model, except if only one unit of the basic model
is produced.
31 DOE’s estimated initial cost to develop and
validate an AEDM includes (1) 80 hours to develop
the AEDM based on existing simulation tools; (2)
an additional 16 hours to validate the AEDM for
two basic models at the cost of an engineering
calibration technician wage of $46 per hour; and (3)
the cost of third-party testing of two units per
validation class (as required in 10 CFR
429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per
basic model cost to determine efficiency using an
AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic model at the cost
of an engineering calibration technician wage of $46
per hour.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
estimated test costs, and DOE’s initial
conclusion regarding the testing costs
associated with the proposed test
procedure for TE2 as compared to the
current test procedure.
industry/voluntary consensus-based or
other appropriate test procedure,
without modification.
2. Harmonization With Industry
Standards
DOE’s established practice is to adopt
relevant industry standards as DOE test
procedures unless such methodology
would be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, water use (as specified in
EPCA) or estimated operating costs of
that product during a representative
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section
8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430
subpart C. In cases where the industry
standard does not meet EPCA statutory
criteria for test procedures, DOE will
make appropriate modifications to the
DOE test procedure through the
rulemaking process.
The current test procedures for CWAF
at 10 CFR 431.76 incorporates by
reference UL 727–2006 for testing oilfired CWAFs, HI BTS–2000 for
performing fuel oil analysis and for
calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs,
ANSI Z21.47–2012 for testing gas-fired
CWAFs, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007
for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs.
As discussed, the proposed
amendments to the DOE test procedure
for determining TE would update the
references to the incorporated industry
testing standards. Also as discussed,
DOE is proposing to adopt a new metric,
TE2, for CWAFs. There is no industry
testing standard that provides for
determining TE2. However, the test
procedure provisions that provide the
measured inputs for determining TE2
rely on the same industry testing
standards DOE is proposing to reference
for determining TE.
DOE requests comments on the
benefits and burdens of the proposed
updates and additions to industry
standards referenced in the test
procedure for CWAFs.
DOE recognizes that adopting
industry standards with modifications
imposes a burden on industry (i.e.,
manufacturers face increased costs if the
DOE modifications require different
testing equipment or facilities). DOE
seeks comment on the degree to which
the DOE test procedure should consider
and be harmonized further with the
most recent relevant industry standards
for CWAFs, and whether there are any
changes to the Federal test method that
would provide additional benefits to the
public. DOE also requests comment on
the benefits and burdens of, or any other
comments regarding adopting of, any
EPCA prescribes that if DOE amends
a test procedure, all representations of
energy efficiency and energy use,
including those made on marketing
materials and product labels, must be
made in accordance with an amended
test procedure, beginning 360 days after
publication of such a test procedure
final rule in the Federal Register. (42
U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
To the extent the modified test
procedure proposed in this document is
required only for the evaluation and
issuance of updated efficiency
standards, use of the modified test
procedure, if finalized, would not be
required until the compliance date of
updated standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
G. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this test
procedure rulemaking does not
constitute a significant regulatory action
under section 3(f) of Executive Order
(‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject
to review under the Executive order by
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the DOE
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE’s
IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
1. Description of Why Action Is Being
Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the
existing DOE test procedures for CWAFs
in satisfaction of the 7-year review
requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA 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 C 32 of EPCA, added
by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section
441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317) This equipment includes
CWAFs, the subject of this document.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J))
Further, if such an industry test
procedure is amended, DOE must
amend its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that such
amended test procedure would not meet
the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)
and (3) related to representative use and
test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once
every 7 years, DOE evaluate test
procedures for each type of covered
equipment, including CWAFs, 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. (42 U.S.C. 63146314(a)(1)(A))
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3. Description and Estimate of Small
Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CWAFs, the
Small Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’)
has set a size threshold, which defines
those entities classified as ‘‘small
businesses’’ for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA’s small
business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be
subject to the requirements of the rule.
See 13 CFR part 121. The equipment
covered by this rule are classified under
North American Industry Classification
32 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415,33 ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees
or fewer for an entity to be considered
as a small business for this category.
DOE reviewed the test procedures
proposed in this NOPR under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the procedures and policies
published on February 19, 2003. DOE’s
analysis relied on publicly available
databases to identify potential small
businesses that manufacture equipment
covered in this rulemaking. DOE
utilized the California Energy
Commission’s Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System
(‘‘MAEDbS’’),34 EPA’s ENERGY STAR
Database,35 and the DOE’s Certification
Compliance Database (‘‘CCD’’) 36 to
identify to manufacturers. DOE
identified eight original equipment
manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of CWAFs
affected by this rulemaking. DOE
screened out companies that do not
meet the definition of a ‘‘small
business’’ or are foreign-owned and
operated. Of these eight OEMs, DOE
identified one small, domestic OEM for
consideration. DOE used subscriptionbased business information tools to
determine headcount and revenue of the
small business.
4. Description and Estimate of
Compliance Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend
the existing test procedure for CWAFs
when determining TE by incorporating
by reference the most up-to-date
versions of the industry standards
currently referenced in the DOE test
procedure, and to provide additional
detail for the test setup for models with
multiple vent hoods and models with
vent hoods having space limitations.
DOE proposes to update appendix A
(formerly 10 CFR 431.76), ‘‘Uniform test
method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial warm air
furnaces’’ as follows:
33 The size standards are listed by NAICS code
and industry description and are available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support—table-sizestandards (Last accessed July 16, 2021).
34 MAEDbS can be accessed at
www.cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/
AdvancedSearch.aspx (Last accessed July 15, 2021).
35 ENERGY STAR-certified products can be found
in the ENERGY STAR database accessed at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/
certified-commercial-water-heaters/results (Last
accessed July 15, 2021).
36 Certified equipment in the CCD are listed by
product class and can be accessed at
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/
#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed July 15,
2021).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10743
(1) Incorporate by reference UL 727–
2018 (previously UL 727–2006) for
testing oil-fired CWAFs;
(2) Incorporate by reference AHRI
1500–2015 (previously HI BTS–2000)
for performing fuel oil analysis and for
calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference ANSI
Z21.47–2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47–
2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs;
(4) Incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2017 (previously ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2007) for testing
condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(5) Incorporate by reference the
standards referenced in UL 727–2018
(i.e., NFPA 97–2003), AHRI 1500–2015
(i.e., ASTM D396–14a, ASTM D240–09,
ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291–
10), and ANSI Z21.47–2021 (i.e., ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)) that are
necessary in performing the DOE test
procedure;
(6) Clarify how to test units with
multiple vent hoods, and units with
vent hoods that are 2 inches in diameter
or smaller; and
DOE also proposes to establish a new
test procedure and metric for ‘‘TE2’’ in
a new appendix B to 10 CFR 431.72,
which manufacturers could use to make
voluntary representations, and which
would be mandatory only at such time
as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on
TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
The proposed new TE2 metric accounts
for flue losses in a manner identical to
the existing TE metric, and accounts for
jacket losses and part-load operation.
Items (1) through (5) incorporate by
reference the most up-to-date versions
of the industry standards currently
referenced in the DOE test procedure.
Item (6) includes clarifications intended
to improve consistency and
reproducibility of test procedure results.
The industry test procedure ANSI
Z21.47 does not specify how to test
units with multiple vent hoods or units
with vent hoods that are too small to fit
the required number of thermocouples.
DOE is proposing to add clarifications
and guidance to address these scenarios.
DOE has tentatively determined that
these proposed amendments in this
NOPR would improve the
representativeness, accuracy, and
reproducibility of the test results and
would not increase third-party
laboratory testing costs.
In item (7), DOE proposes to adopt
appendix B, which includes the relevant
test procedure requirements for
measuring TE2, an efficiency metric
proposed by DOE which incorporates
jacket loss and CWAF performance at
reduced firing rates. The proposed
NOPR amendments would not require
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10744
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
manufacturers to re-rate models, as DOE
energy conservation standards do not
currently require TE2 ratings. As such,
the test procedure amendments do not
result in industry costs.
Should DOE adopt energy
conservation standards based on the
TE2 metric in proposed appendix B in
the future, DOE anticipates
manufacturers would incur costs to rerate models as result of the standards.
DOE expects the proposed test
procedure in appendix B for measuring
TE2 would increase testing costs
compared to the current DOE test
procedure. The current DOE test
procedure costs approximately $4,200
per unit for third-party laboratory
testing. DOE estimates the cost for thirdparty laboratory testing according to the
proposed appendix B to be $6,400 per
unit.
If CWAF manufacturers conduct
testing to certify a basic model, two
units are required to be tested per basic
model. The test cost, according to the
proposed amendments, would be
$12,800 per basic model.37 However,
manufacturers are not required to
perform laboratory testing on all basic
models, as CWAF manufacturers may
elect to use AEDMs.38 An AEDM is a
computer modeling or mathematical
tool that predicts the performance of
non-tested basic models. These
computer modeling and mathematical
tools, when properly developed, can
provide a means to predict the energy
usage or efficiency characteristics of a
basic model of a given covered product
or equipment and reduce the burden
and cost associated with testing. DOE
estimates the cost to develop and
validate an AEDM for CWAFs to be
$17,300, which includes testing of two
models per validation class.
Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of
approximately $46 per basic model for
determining energy efficiency using the
validated AEDM.
DOE estimates the range of potential
costs for the one domestic, small OEM.
When developing cost estimates for the
small OEM, DOE considers the cost to
develop the AEDM simulation tool, the
costs to validate the AEDM through
testing, and the cost to rate basic models
using the AEDM.
DOE research indicates that the one
small manufacturer has average annual
revenues of $3.3 million. DOE
understands this OEM to manufacture
four basic models. Therefore, DOE
estimates that the associated re-rating
costs for this manufacturer to be
37 The cost to test one unit is $6,400. The cost to
test two units is $12,800.
38 In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
approximately $17,400 when making
use of AEDMs. The cost for this small
manufacturer to re-rate all basic models
is estimated to be less than 1 percent of
annual revenue.
DOE requests comment on the
number of small OEMs DOE identified.
DOE also seeks comment on the
potential costs this small manufacturer
may incur.
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict
With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or
regulations that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the rule being considered
today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to reduce burden on
manufacturers, including small
businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu
of physically testing all basic models.
The use of an AEDM is less costly than
physical testing of CWAF models.
Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost
to physically test all CWAF basic
models for the identified small
manufacturer to be approximately
$51,200.
Additional compliance flexibilities
may be available through other means.
EPCA provides that a manufacturer
whose annual gross revenue from all of
its operations does not exceed $8
million may apply for an exemption
from all or part of an energy
conservation standard for a period not
longer than 24 months after the effective
date of a final rule establishing the
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t))
Additionally, manufacturers subject to
DOE’s energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and
Appeals for exception relief under
certain circumstances. Manufacturers
should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional
details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CWAFs must certify
to DOE that their products comply with
any applicable energy conservation
standards. To certify compliance,
manufacturers must first obtain test data
for their products according to the DOE
test procedures, including any
amendments adopted for those test
procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all
covered consumer products and
commercial equipment, including
CWAFs. (See generally 10 CFR part
429.) The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This
requirement has been approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1910–1400.
Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test
procedure amendments that it expects
will be used to develop and implement
future energy conservation standards for
CWAFs. DOE has determined that this
rule falls into a class of actions that are
categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that
adopting test procedures for measuring
energy efficiency of consumer products
and industrial equipment is consistent
with activities identified in 10 CFR part
1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and
A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive order also requires agencies to
have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have Federalism
implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy
describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE has examined this proposed
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
rule and has determined that it would
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE
for exemption from such preemption to
the extent, and based on criteria, set
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 4316(b); 42
U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately
defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
https://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its
statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate, nor a
mandate that may result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more in
any year, so these requirements do not
apply.
10745
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are
available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/
files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final
%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines
%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this proposed
regulation would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to
amend the test procedure for measuring
the energy efficiency of CWAFs is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it
would not have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as
a significant energy action by the
Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is
not a significant energy action, and,
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed rule would not have any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of
the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10746
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply
with section 32 of the Federal Energy
Administration Act of 1974, as amended
by the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C.
788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially
provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use
of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed modifications to the
test procedure for CWAF would
incorporate testing methods contained
in certain sections of the following
commercial standards: UL 727–2018,
AHRI 1500–2015 ANSI Z21.47–2021,
and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017. DOE has
evaluated these standards and is unable
to conclude whether they fully comply
with the requirements of section 32(b) of
the FEAA (i.e., whether it was
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will
consult with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to
prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the following
standards:
(1) UL 727–2018. This test standard
provides instruction for how to test oilfired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727–2018 can be
obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW. Lake Rd.,
Camas, WA 98607–8542, (360) 817–
5500 or online at:
standardscatalog.ul.com.
(2) ANSI Z21.47–2021. This test
standard provides instruction for how to
test gas-fired CWAFs.
(3) ASHRAE 103–2017. This test
standard provides instruction for how to
test residential furnaces and boilers,
which DOE is referencing for the
purpose of providing instruction for
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs.
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004). This standard is also
referenced as ANSI Z21.47–2021, and it
specifies thermocouple requirements for
when testing gas-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2017 and ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), can be obtained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
from 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New
York, NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, or
online at: webstore.ansi.org.
(5) AHRI 1500–2015. This test
standard provides instruction for how to
test perform fuel oil analysis and for
how to calculate flue loss of oil-fired
CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be
obtained from 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite
500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–
8800, or online at: ahrinet.org.
(6) NFPA 97–2003. This standard is
referenced in UL 727–2018, and it
provides definitions for the terms
combustible and noncombustible.
Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be
obtained form 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471, (617) 770–
3000 or by going online at:
www.nfpa.org.
(7) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17.
This standard is referenced in UL 727–
2018, and it specifies thermocouple
requirements for when testing oil-fired
CWAFs.
(8) ASTM D396–14a. This standard is
referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it
contains general fuel oil requirements.
(9) ASTM D240–09. This standard is
referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it
contains fuel oil heating value
requirements.
(10) ASTM D4809–09a. This standard
is referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it
contains fuel oil hydrogen and carbon
content requirements.
(11) ASTM D5291–10. This standard
is referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it
contains fuel oil density requirements.
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–
17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–14a,
ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291–
10, can be obtained from 100 Barr
Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909–
2786 or by going online at:
www.astm.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar
meeting are listed in the DATES section
at the beginning of this document. If no
participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be
published on DOE’s website:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/standards.aspx?
productid=49&action=viewlive
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared
General Statements for Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the
topics addressed in this proposed rule,
or who is representative of a group or
class of persons that has an interest in
these issues, may request an
opportunity to make an oral
presentation at the webinar. Such
persons may submit to Appliance
StandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.
Persons who wish to speak should
include with their request a computer
file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,
PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that
briefly describes the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and the
topics they wish to discuss. Such
persons should also provide a daytime
telephone number where they can be
reached.
Persons requesting to speak should
briefly describe the nature of their
interest in this rulemaking and provide
a telephone number for contact. DOE
requests persons selected to make an
oral presentation to submit an advance
copy of their statements at least two
weeks before the webinar. At its
discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of
their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative
arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary,
requests to give an oral presentation
should ask for such alternative
arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to
preside at the webinar/public meeting
and may also use a professional
facilitator to aid discussion. The
meeting will not be a judicial or
evidentiary-type public hearing, but
DOE will conduct it in accordance with
section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A
court reporter will be present to record
the proceedings and prepare a
transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and
to establish the procedures governing
the conduct of the webinar/public
meeting. There shall not be discussion
of proprietary information, costs or
prices, market share, or other
commercial matters regulated by U.S.
anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public
meeting and until the end of the
comment period, interested parties may
submit further comments on the
proceedings and any aspect of the
rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an
informal, conference style. DOE will
present a general overview of the topics
addressed in this rulemaking, allow
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
time for prepared general statements by
participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on
issues affecting this rulemaking. Each
participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits
determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will
permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any
general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements
on a topic, DOE will permit participants
to clarify their statements briefly.
Participants should be prepared to
answer questions by DOE and by other
participants concerning these issues.
DOE representatives may also ask
questions of participants concerning
other matters relevant to this
rulemaking. The official conducting the
webinar/public meeting will accept
additional comments or questions from
those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any
further procedural rules or modification
of the above procedures that may be
needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar will be
included in the docket, which can be
viewed as described in the Docket
section at the beginning of this
document. In addition, any person may
buy a copy of the transcript from the
transcribing reporter.
D. Participation in the Webinar
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this
document.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Persons viewing comments will see only
first and last names, organization
names, correspondence containing
comments, and any documents
submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email.
Comments and documents submitted
via email also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. No faxes
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format.
Provide documents that are not secured,
written in English and free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should
not contain special characters or any
form of encryption and, if possible, they
should carry the electronic signature of
the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10747
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on its
tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is
an outdated standard that has been
superseded by NFPA 97–2003. DOE
seeks comment on its proposal to
incorporate by reference NFPA 97–2003
in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
(2) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to adopt the optional method
specified in AHRI 1500–2015 that
allows for calculating CO2 using a
measured O2 value. DOE also seeks
comment on its proposal to
establishestablish section 3 of appendix
A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR 431.76(d)
of the current DOE test procedure) to
accommodate the option to calculate
CO2 using a measured O2 value.
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether
the option provided in Section 5.4a of
ANSI Z21.47–2021 to use test gas H
when performing the three burner
characteristics tests would impact the
representativeness or burden of the
thermal efficiency test.
(4) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to establish a new test
procedure (i.e., appendix B) and metric
(i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which would
generally adopt the same changes
proposed for the current test procedure
at appendix A and account for flue
losses in the same manner as the current
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10748
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
TE metric, but would additionally
account for jacket losses and part load
operation.
(5) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to require jacket loss be
measured when testing CWAFs
designed for outdoor installation and
designed for indoor installation within
an unheated space when determining
TE2 pursuant to newly proposed
appendix B, and on its proposed
method for measuring jacket loss. DOE
also seeks comment on its proposal that
jacket loss for CWAFs intended for
indoor installation within a heated
space would be assumed to be zero, and
on its proposed jacket loss factors for
CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor
installation within an unheated space.
(6) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to add a part-load test
procedure to be incorporated into the
newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also
seeks comment on its proposal to
calculate TE2 by averaging performance
at the maximum and minimum fire rate
and seeks and any related data. DOE
also requests comment on alternate
weighting values, including those
discussed, that may be more nationally
representative of an average use, along
with any relevant data.
(7) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to provide instructions in the
DOE test procedure for testing units
with multiple vent hoods.
(8) DOE seeks comment on its
assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent
hood is proportional to the size of the
vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks
comment on its proposal to compare
vent hood outlet face areas to determine
vent hood size.
(9) DOE seeks comment on the
proposal to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas- and
oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured in the
vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2
inches or smaller in diameter, five
thermocouples may optionally be used.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its
proposal to require the calculation
method specified in Annex I of ANSI
Z21.47–2021 be used when determining
flue loss, and not the nomograph
method.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its
understanding of the impact of the test
procedure proposals in this NOPR,
specifically with respect to DOE’s
estimated test costs, and DOE’s initial
conclusion regarding the testing costs
associated with the proposed test
procedure for TE2 as compared to the
current test procedure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
(12) DOE requests comment on the
number of small OEMs DOE identified.
DOE also seeks comment on the
potential costs this small manufacturer
may incur.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test
procedures, Incorporation by reference,
and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on February 11,
2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
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 February 14,
2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
10 CFR part 431 as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
2. Amend § 431.72 by adding, in
alphabetical order, a definition for
‘‘Thermal efficiency two’’ to read as
follows:
■
§ 431.72 Definitions concerning
commercial warm air furnaces.
*
*
*
*
*
Thermal efficiency two for a
commercial warm air furnace equals 100
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
percent minus percent flue loss and
jacket loss.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 431.75 to read as follows:
§ 431.75 Materials incorporated by
reference.
Certain material is incorporated by
reference into this subpart with the
approval of the Director of the Federal
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in
this section, DOE must publish a
document in the Federal Register and
the material must be available to the
public. All approved material is
available for inspection at DOE, and at
the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at
the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW,
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127,
Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://
www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/
building-technologies-office. For
information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@
nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. It
may be obtained from the following
sources:
(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to:
www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500–2015 (‘‘AHRI
1500–2015’’), ‘‘Performance Rating of
Commercial Space Heating Boilers’’,
approved November 28, 2014; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212)
642–4900 or go to www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.47–2021,‘‘Gas-fired
Central Furnaces’’, approved April 21,
2021; IBR approved for appendices A
and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie
Circle NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404)
636–8400, or go to: www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–
2017 (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2017’’), ‘‘Method
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers’’, approved June
30, 2017; IBR approved for appendices
A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
(d) ASME. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Service Center,
22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield,
NJ 07007, (973) 882–1170, or go to
www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004) (‘‘ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004)’’), ‘‘Part 3: Temperature
Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus’’, published January 1, 2004;
IBR approved for appendices A and B to
this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909–
2786, or go to www.astm.org/.
(1) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17
(‘‘ASTM E230/E230M–17’’), ‘‘Standard
Specification for TemperatureElectromotive Force (emf) Tables for
Standardized Thermocouples’’,
approved November 1, 2017, IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this
subpart.
(2) ASTM D240–09, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter’’, approved July 1, 2009;
IBR approved for appendices A and B to
this subpart.
(3) ASTM D396–14a, ‘‘Standard
Specification for Fuel Oils,’’ approved
on October 1, 2014; IBR approved for
appendices A and B to this subpart.
(4) ASTM D4809–09a, ‘‘Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this
subpart.
(5) ASTM D5291–10, ‘‘Standard Test
Methods for Instrumental Determination
of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in
Petroleum Products and Lubricants’’,
approved on May 1, 2010; IBR approved
for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection
Association, 11 Tracy Drive, Avon, MA
02322, 1–800–344–3555, or go to
www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 97–2003, ‘‘Standard
Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys,
Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances’’;
IBR approved for appendices A and B to
this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL
60062, (847) 272–8800, or go to:
www.ul.com.
(1) UL 727 (‘‘UL 727–2018’’),
‘‘Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces’’, Tenth Edition, published
January 31, 2018; IBR approved for
appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
■ 4. Revise § 431.76 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
§ 431.76 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial warm air furnaces.
(a) Scope. This section prescribes the
test requirements used to measure the
energy efficiency of commercial warm
air furnaces with a rated maximum
input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.
(b) Testing and calculations. (1)
Thermal efficiency. Test in accordance
with appendix A to subpart D of this
part when making representations of
thermal efficiency.
(2) Thermal efficiency two. Test in
accordance with appendix B to subpart
D of this part when making
representations of thermal efficiency
two.
■ 5. Add appendix A to subpart D of
part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
(Thermal Efficiency)
Note: On and after [date 360 days following
publication of a final rule], any
representations made with respect to the
energy use or efficiency of commercial warm
air furnaces must be made in accordance
with the results of testing pursuant to this
section. At that time, manufacturers must use
the relevant procedures specified in this
appendix, which reference ANSI Z21.47–
2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, UL 727–2018, or
AHRI 1500–2015. On and after [effective date
30 days following publication of a final rule]
and prior to [date 360 days following
publication of a final rule], manufacturers
must test commercial warm air furnaces in
accordance with this appendix or 10 CFR
431.76 (revised as of January 1, 2020). DOE
notes that, because testing under this section
is required as of [date 360 days following
publication of a final rule], manufacturers
may wish to begin using this amended test
procedure immediately. Any representations
made with respect to the energy use or
efficiency of such commercial warm air
furnaces must be made in accordance with
whichever version is selected.
1. Incorporation by reference. DOE
incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the
entirety of standards AHRI 1500–2015, ANSI
Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, ASME
PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/
E230M–17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–
14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM D5291–10,
NFPA 97–2003, and UL 727–2018. However,
for standards ANSI Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE
103–2017, UL 727–2018, and AHRI 1500–
2015, only the enumerated provisions of
those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47–2021
1.1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 as
specified in section 2.1 of this appendix;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections
2.1 and 3.1 of this appendix; 1.1.3 Section
5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of this
appendix;
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10749
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4.1
of this appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103–2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of
ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section
3.2 of this appendix;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103–2017 as
specified in section 2.3.1 of this appendix.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of
ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section
5.1 of this appendix.
1.3 UL 727–2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40,
40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727–
2018 as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018 as
specified in section 3.1 of this appendix.
1.4 AHRI 1500–2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500–2015
as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix;
1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of
the AHRI 1500–2015of section 4.2 of this
appendix.
2. Test set-up and Testing. Where this
section prescribes use of ANSI Z21.47–2021
or UL 727–2018, perform only the procedures
pertinent to the measurement of the steadystate efficiency, as specified in this section.
2.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. The test set-up, including flue
requirement, instrumentation, test
conditions, and measurements for
determining thermal efficiency are as
specified in section 2.3 of this appendix, and
the following sections of ANSI Z21.47–2021:
5.1 (General, including ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004) as referenced in Section 5.1.4), 5.2
(Basic test arrangements), 5.3 (Test ducts and
plenums), 5.4 (Test gases), 5.5 (Test pressures
and burner adjustments), 5.6 (Static pressure
and air flow adjustments), 5.40 (Thermal
efficiency), and 7.2.1 (Basic test arrangements
for direct vent central furnaces). If section 2.3
of this appendix and ANSI Z21.47–2021 have
conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when
testing units with vent hoods two inches in
diameters or smaller), follow the provisions
in section 2.3. The thermal efficiency test
must be conducted only at the normal inlet
test pressure, as specified in Section 5.5.1 of
ANSI Z21.47–2021, and at the maximum
hourly Btu input rating specified by the
manufacturer for the product being tested.
2.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. The test setup, including flue
requirement, instrumentation, test
conditions, and measurement for measuring
thermal efficiency is as specified in section
2.3 of this appendix and the following
sections of UL 727–2018: 2 (Units of
Measurement), 3 (Glossary, except that the
definitions for combustible and noncombustible in Sections 3.11 and 3.27 shall
be as referenced in NFPA 97–2003), 37
(General), 38 and 39 (Test Installation), 40
(Instrumentation, except 40.4 and 40.6.2
through 40.6.7 which are not required for the
thermal efficiency test, and including ASTM
E230/E230M–17 as referenced in Sections
40.6), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42
(Combustion Test—Burner and Furnace),
43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10750
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation
Test), and 46 (Air Flow, Downflow or
Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 2.3 of
this appendix and UL 727 have conflicting
provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when
testing units with vent hoods two inches in
diameters or smaller), follow the provisions
in section 2.3 of this appendix. Conduct a
fuel oil analysis for heating value, hydrogen
content, carbon content, pounds per gallon,
and American Petroleum Institute (API)
gravity as specified in Section C3.2.1.1 of
AHRI 1500–2015, including the applicable
provisions of ASTM D240–09, ASTM D4809–
09a, ASTM D5291–10, and ASTM D396–14a,
as referenced. The steady-state combustion
conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of UL
727–2018, are attained when variations of not
more than 5 °F in the measured flue gas
temperature occur for three consecutive
readings taken 15 minutes apart.
2.3 Additional test set up requirements
for gas-fired and oil-fired commercial warm
air furnaces
2.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas and oilfired commercial warm air furnaces with flue
vents that are two inches in diameter or
smaller. For units with vent hoods (i.e., flue
outlet hoods) two inches in diameter or
smaller, the flue gas temperatures may
optionally be measured using five individual
thermocouples, instead of nine
thermocouples.
2.3.2 Procedure for flue gas
measurements when testing units with
multiple vent hoods. For units that have
multiple vent hoods record flue gas
measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature,
CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each
individual vent hood and calculate a
weighted-average value based on the readings
of all vent hoods. To determine the weighted
average for each measurement, first calculate
the face area of each vent hood. Then
multiply the ratio of each individual vent
hood’s face area to the total face area of all
vent hoods (i.e., the face area of each
individual vent hood divided by the total
vent hood area) by that vent hood’s
respective component measurement and the
sum of all of the products for all of the vent
hoods to determine the weighted-average
values. Use the weighted-average values to
determine flue loss, and whether equilibrium
conditions are met before the official test
period.
3. Additional test measurements
3.1 Determination of flue CO2 (carbon
dioxide) or O2 (oxygen) for oil-fired
commercial warm air furnaces. In addition to
the flue temperature measurement specified
in Section 40.6.8 of UL 727–2018, locate one
or two sampling tubes within six inches
downstream from the flue temperature probe
(as indicated on Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018).
If an open end tube is used, it must project
into the flue one-third of the chimney
connector diameter. If other methods of
sampling the flue gas are used place the
sampling tube so as to obtain an average
sample. There must be no air leak between
the temperature probe and the sampling tube
location. Collect the flue gas sample at the
same time the flue gas temperature is
recorded. The CO2 or O2 concentration of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
flue gas must be as specified by the
manufacturer for the product being tested,
with a tolerance of ±0.1 percent. Determine
the flue CO2 or O2 using an instrument with
a reading error no greater than ±0.1 percent.
3.2 Procedure for the measurement of
condensate for a gas-fired condensing
commercial warm air furnace. The test
procedure for the measurement of the
condensate from the flue gas under steadystate operation must be conducted as
specified in Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of
ASHRAE 103–2017 under the maximum
rated input conditions. This condensate
measurement must be conducted for an
additional 30 minutes of steady-state
operation after completion of the steady-state
thermal efficiency test specified in Section
2.1 of this appendix.
4. Calculation of thermal efficiency
4.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. Use the calculation procedure
specified in Section 5.40, Thermal efficiency,
of ANSI Z21.47–2021. When determining the
flue loss that is used in the calculation of
thermal efficiency, the calculation method
specified in Annex I shall be used.
4.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. Calculate the percent flue loss (in
percent of heat input rate) by following the
procedure specified in Sections C7.2.4,
C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500–2015.
The thermal efficiency must be calculated as:
Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent ¥
flue loss (in percent).
5. Procedure for the calculation of the
additional heat gain and heat loss, and
adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a
condensing commercial warm air furnace.
5.1 Calculate the latent heat gain from the
condensation of the water vapor in the flue
gas, and calculate heat loss due to the flue
condensate down the drain, as specified in
Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE
103–2017, with the exception that in the
equation for the heat loss due to hot
condensate flowing down the drain in
Section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor
temperature of 70 °F and the temperature
term TOA must be replaced by the measured
room temperature as specified in Section
5.2.8 of ANSI Z21.47–2021.
5.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency
for condensing furnaces. Adjust the thermal
efficiency as calculated in section 4.1 of this
appendix by adding the latent gain,
expressed in percent, from the condensation
of the water vapor in the flue gas, and
subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue
condensate down the drain), also expressed
in percent, both as calculated in section 5.1
of this appendix, to obtain the thermal
efficiency of a condensing furnace.
6. Add appendix B to subpart D of
part 431 to read as follows:
■
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431–
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
(Thermal Efficiency Two)
Note: Representations with respect to
energy use or efficiency of this equipment,
including compliance certifications, must be
made in terms of thermal efficiency (TE), as
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
determined by the test procedure specified in
appendix A to this subpart. In addition,
manufacturers may optionally make
representations of energy use or efficiency of
this equipment using thermal efficiency 2
(TE2) as determined using this appendix [on
or after effective date 30 days after
publication of final rule].
1. Incorporation by Reference. DOE
incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the
entirety of standards AHRI 1500–2015, ANSI
Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, ASME
PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/
E230M–17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–
14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM D5291–10,
NFPA 97–2003, and UL 727–2018. However,
for standards ANSI Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE
103–2017, UL 727–2018, and AHRI 1500–
2015, only the enumerated provisions of
those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47–2021
1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 as
specified in section 2.1 of appendix A to this
subpart;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections
2.1 and 3.1 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section
5.1 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4 of
appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.5 Annex J as specified in sections 2.2
and 2.6 of this appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103–2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of
ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section
3.2 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103–2017 as
specified in section 2.3.1 of appendix A to
this subpart.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of
ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section
5.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.3 UL 727–2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40,
40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727–
2018 as specified in section 2.2 of appendix
A to this subpart;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018 as
specified in section 3.1 of appendix A to this
subpart.
1.4 AHRI 1500–2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500–2015
as specified in section 2.2 to appendix A of
this subpart;
1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2
of the AHRI 1500–2015 of section 4.2 of
appendix A to this subpart.
2. Testing
2.1 Setup and test the unit according to
sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this
subpart, while operating the unit at the
maximum nameplate input rate (i.e., full
load). Calculate thermal efficiency TE using
the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5
of appendix A to this subpart.
2.2 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed for outdoor installation
(including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to
wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules
within an unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion systems), determine the jacket
loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI
Z21.47–2021 while the unit is operating at
the maximum nameplate input.
2.3 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed only for indoor insulation
within a heated space, jacket shall be zero.
For commercial warm air furnaces that are
designed for indoor installation within a
heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.2 of this
appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial
warm air furnaces, including commercial
warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not
limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or
approved for resistance to wind, rain, or
snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in
section 2.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in
section 2.3 of this appendix from the TE
determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to
determine the full load efficiency.
2.5 Setup and test the unit according to
sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this
subpart, while operating the unit at the
nameplate minimum input rate (i.e., part
load). Calculate TE using the procedure
specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A
to this subpart.
2.6 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed for outdoor installation
(including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to
wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation
within an unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion systems), determine the jacket
loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI
Z21.47–2021 while the unit is operating at
the minimum nameplate input. Alternatively,
the jacket loss determined in section 2.2 of
this appendix at the maximum nameplate
input may be used.
2.7 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed only for indoor insulation
within a heated space, jacket shall be zero.
For commercial warm air furnaces that are
designed for indoor installation within a
heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.6 of this
appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial
warm air furnaces, including commercial
warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not
limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or
approved for resistance to wind, rain, or
snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in
section 2.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in
section 2.7 of this appendix from the TE
determined in section 2.5 of this appendix to
determine the part load efficiency.
2.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of
the full-load and part-load.
[FR Doc. 2022–03484 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:13 Feb 24, 2022
Jkt 256001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2022–BT–TP–0003 and EERE–2022–
STD–0001]
RIN 1904–AE95 and 1904–AE97
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Dedicated-Purpose Pool
Pumps and Energy Conservation
Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool
Pumps; Reopening of Comment Period
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information;
reopening of public comment period.
AGENCY:
On January 24, 2022, the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’)
published two requests for information
(‘‘RFIs’’) regarding dedicated-purpose
pool pumps. DOE published a RFI
regarding test procedures for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps and a RFI
regarding energy conservation standards
for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The
RFIs each provided an opportunity for
submitting written comments, data, and
information on the proposal by February
23, 2022. DOE received a request from
the Pool and Hut Tub Alliance on
February 9, 2022, and a joint request
from the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, San Diego Gas and Electric,
and Southern California Edison on
February 11, 2022, each asking DOE to
extend the public comment periods for
both RFIs for 30 additional days. DOE
has reviewed these requests and is
reopening the public comment periods
to allow comments to be submitted until
March 9, 2022.
DATES: The comment periods for the
RFIs published on January 24, 2022 (87
FR 3457; 87 FR 3461) is reopened. DOE
will accept comments, data, and
information regarding these RFIs
received no later than March 9, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2022–BT–TP–0003 for
the test procedure RFI and EERE–2022–
BT–STD–0001 for the energy
conservation standard RFI, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
(2) Email: DPPP2022TP0003@
ee.doe.gov for the test procedure RFI.
DPPP2022STD0001@ee.doe.gov for the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10751
energy conservation standards RFI. For
the test procedure RFI, include the
docket number EERE–2022–BT–TP–
0003 or regulatory information number
(‘‘RIN’’) 1904–AE95 in the subject line
of the message. For the energy
conservation standards RFI, include the
docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD–
0001 or regulatory information number
(‘‘RIN’’) 1904–AE97 in the subject line
of the message.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Although DOE has routinely accepted
public comment submissions through a
variety of mechanisms, including postal
mail and hand delivery/courier, the
Department has found it necessary to
make temporary modifications to the
comment submission process in light of
the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic. DOE
is currently suspending receipt of public
comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds
that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance
Standards Program staff at (202) 586–
1445 to discuss the need for alternative
arrangements. Once the COVID–19
pandemic health emergency is resolved,
DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment
submission, including postal mail and
hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The dockets, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts (if a public
meeting is held), comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, are
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the dockets are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web pages can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2022-BT-TP-0003 and
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2020-BT-STD-0001 for dedicatedpurpose pool pump test procedure and
energy conservation standards,
respectively. The docket web pages
contain instructions on how to access
all documents, including public
comments, in each docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, 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–
9870. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10726-10751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041]
RIN 1904-AE57
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Warm
Air Furnaces
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs'') to
incorporate the latest versions of the industry standards that are
currently incorporated by reference. DOE also proposes to establish a
new metric, Thermal Efficiency Two (``TE2''), and corresponding test
procedure. Use of the newly proposed test procedure would become
mandatory at such time as compliance with amended energy conservation
standards based on TE2 is required, should DOE adopt such standards.
DOE also proposes additional specifications for CWAFs with multiple
vent hoods or small-diameter vent hoods. DOE is seeking comment from
interested parties on the proposal.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than April 26, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, March
29, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket
[[Page 10727]]
number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041-0001. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Julia Hegarty, 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:
(240) 567-6737. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Z21.47-2021,
``Gas-fired Central Furnaces'';
ANSI/The American Scociety of Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') PTC
19.3-1974 (R2004), ``Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus'';
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-
conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 103-2017, ``Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers'';
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, can be obtained from American National Standards
Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-
4900, or online at: webstore.ansi.org.
Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') standard UL 727-2018 ``Standard
for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces'';
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW, Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-
5500 or online at: standardscatalog.ul.com.
ANSI/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(``AHRI'') 1500-2015 ``Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating
Boilers'';
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at: ahrinet.org.
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 ``Standard Specification for Temperature-
Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples'';
ASTM D240-09 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'';
ASTM D396-14a ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils'';
ASTM D4809-09a ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)'';
ASTM D5291-10 ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants'';
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, and can be obtained from ASTM,
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by going online at: www.astm.org.
National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 97-2003 ``Standard
Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing
Appliances''.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained from National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471,
(617) 770-3000 or by going online at: www.nfpa.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. UL 727-2006
2. HI BTS-2000
3. ANSI Z21.47
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
C. ``Thermal Efficiency Two'' Metric
1. Jacket Loss
2. Part-Load Performance
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Multiple Vent
Hoods
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space
Limitations
3. Input Rate Tolerance
4. Flue Loss Determination
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
G. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
[[Page 10728]]
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Participation in the Webinar
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
CWAFs are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards
and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedures for CWAFs are currently prescribed at
subpart D of part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
test procedures for CWAFs and relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
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 C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This
equipment includes CWAFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedure for CWAFs be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures developed or recognized by the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such industry test procedure is amended, DOE
must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended
industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test
burden, in which case DOE may establish an amended test procedure that
does satisfy those statutory provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and
(C))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAF, 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. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the
Federal Register and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not
less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is
publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
B. Background
DOE's current test procedure for CWAFs is codified at 10 CFR
431.76, ``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency
of commercial warm air furnaces.'' The currently applicable test
procedure incorporates by reference two industry standards for testing
gas-fired CWAFs: American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')
Z21.47-2012, ``Standard for Gas-fired Central Furnaces'' (``ANSI
Z21.47-2012''), which is used for all types of gas-fired CWAFs; and
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 103-2007, ``Method of Testing for
Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and
Boilers'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007''), which is specifically used for
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 10 CFR
[[Page 10729]]
431.76 (c)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (f)(1);10 CFR 431.75(b)(1) and
(c)(1). The current test procedure also incorporates by reference two
industry standards for testing oil-fired CWAFs: Hydronics Institute
Division of AHRI (``HI'') BTS-2000 Rev 06.07, ``Method to Determine
Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating Boilers'' (``HI BTS-2000'') \3\
and Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') UL 727-2006, ``Standard for
Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces'' (``UL 727-2006'').\4\ 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2), (d)(1), and (e)(2); 10 CFR 471.75(d)(1) and (e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE determined that UL 727-1994 did not provide a procedure
for calculating the percent flue loss of the furnace, which is
necessary in calculating the thermal efficiency, and therefore
incorporated by reference provisions from HI BTS-2000 to calculate
the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR 61916, 61917, 61940 (Oct.
21, 2004).
\4\ UL 727-1994 is also incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.75, but is no longer referenced in the test method specified in
10 CFR 431.76, which references only UL 727-2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE most recently amended the test procedure for CWAFs in a final
rule published on July 17, 2015, which updated the test procedure for
gas-fired CWAFs to incorporate by reference the latest versions of the
industry standards available at the time (i.e., ANSI Z21.47-2012 and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007). 80 FR 42614 (``July 2015 final rule''). At the
time of the July 2015 final rule, UL 727-2006 and HI BTS-2000 were
still the most recent versions of those industry standards.
On May 5, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
soliciting public comments, data, and information on aspects of the
existing DOE test procedure for CWAFs, including whether there are any
issues with the current test procedure and whether it is in need of
updates or revisions. 85 FR 26626 (``May 2020 RFI'').
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in
Commenter(s) this NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP............ Efficiency
Project. Organization.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA............ Efficiency
Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs......... Utility
Southern California Gas Company, Organization.
Southern California Edison, and San
Diego Gas and Electric Company
(collectively, the ``California
Investor-Owned Utilities'').
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI............ Trade
Refrigeration Institute. Association.
American Public Gas Association..... APGA............ Trade
Association.
Carrier Corporation................. Carrier......... Manufacturer.
Trane Technologies.................. Trane........... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for CWAFs. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041, which
is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for a test
procedure rulemaking. See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021) (effective
January 12, 2022). Section 8(b) of appendix A states if DOE determines
that it is appropriate to continue the test procedure rulemaking after
the early assessment process, it will provide further opportunities for
early public input through Federal Register documents, including
notices of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is opting to deviate from
this provision due to the substantial feedback and information supplied
by commenters in response to the May 2020 RFI.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, the May 2020 RFI
requested submission of such comments, data, and information pertinent
to test procedures for CWAFs. In response to the May 2020 RFI,
stakeholders provided substantial comments and information, which DOE
has found sufficient to identify the need to modify the test procedures
for CWAFs. Section III of this NOPR discusses in detail the comments
received and how early stakeholder feedback has been considered in
forming DOE's proposals to amend the CWAF test procedure.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CWAFs
as follows:
(1) Reorganize the setup and testing provisions in 10 CFR 431.76
related to the determination of thermal efficiency into the newly
established 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix A (``appendix A'');
(2) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the
currently referenced industry standards:
UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006) for testing oil-fired
CWAFs;
AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-2000) for performing
fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs;
ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47-2012) for testing
gas-fired CWAFs; and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007) for
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-
2018 (i.e., NFPA 97-2003), AHRI 1500-2015 (i.e., ASTM D396-14a, ASTM
D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10), and ANSI Z21.47-2021
(i.e., ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004)) that are necessary for
performing the DOE test procedure;
(4) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units
with vent hoods that are 2 inches or smaller in diameter; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D,
appendix B (``appendix B''), which would generally require testing as
in appendix A, but which would establish a new metric, ``TE2.'' The new
TE2 metric would account for jacket losses and part-load operation in
addition to accounting for flue losses. If adopted, manufacturers could
use proposed new appendix B to make voluntary representations of TE2;
this proposed test procedure would become mandatory at such time as
compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based
on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
[[Page 10730]]
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedures Relative to Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedures Applicable test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References UL 727-2006 for testing Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
oil-fired CWAFs. UL 727-2018 for testing standard update.
oil-fired CWAFs, and the
standards referenced in
UL 727-2018 that are
necessary in performing
the DOE test procedure
(i.e., NFPA 97-2003).
References HI BTS-2000 for Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
performing fuel oil analysis and AHRI 1500-2015 for standard update.
for calculating flue loss of oil- performing fuel oil
fired CWAFs. analysis and for
calculating flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs and the
standards referenced in
AHRI 1500-2015 that are
necessary in performing
the DOE test procedure
(i.e., ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D240-09, ASTM D4809-
09a, and ASTM D5291-10).
References ANSI Z21.47-2012 for Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
testing gas-fired CWAFs. ANSI Z21.47-2021 for standard update.
testing gas-fired CWAFs,
and the standards
referenced in ANSI Z21.47-
2021 that are necessary
in performing the DOE
test procedure (i.e.,
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974
(R2004)).
References ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
for testing condensing gas-fired ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 for standard update.
CWAFs. testing condensing gas-
fired CWAFs.
Does not specify how to test units Adds specifications for Appendix A and appendix B. Additional
with multiple vent hoods. units with multiple vent specification to
hoods. Measurements made improve consistency
in each vent hood shall and repeatability
be averaged or adjusted in testing.
using a weighted average,
depending on the flue
hood face area.
Does not specify how to test units Adds specifications to Appendix A and appendix B. Additional
with vent hoods that are too address units with small- specification to
small to fit nine thermocouples. diameter vent hoods. improve consistency
Units with vent hoods and repeatability
that are 2 inches or in testing.
smaller in diameter may
optionally use 5
thermocouples.
Efficiency metric (TE) only Establishes a new metric Appendix B................ Improve
accounts for flue losses and does (TE2) that accounts for representativeness.
not account for jacket losses or flue losses, jacket
part-load operation. losses, and part-load
operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments for the
test procedure at appendix A described in section III of this document
would not alter the measured efficiency of CWAFs, that the proposed
test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, and that the
proposed test procedures more accurately produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of
CWAFs during a representative average use cycle.
The additional proposed amendments for the newly proposed appendix
B would alter the reported efficiency of CWAFs, as discussed in the
relevant section of this document. However, as proposed, testing in
accordance with these specific proposed changes would not be required
until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy
conservation standards based on appendix B.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are discussed in detail in
section III of this document.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE describes the proposed amendments to
the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE seeks input from the public to
assist with its consideration of the proposed amendments presented in
this document. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other relevant
issues that may not specifically be identified in this document.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to CWAFs. EPCA defines ``warm air furnace''
as a self-contained oil-fired or gas-fired furnace designed to supply
heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes
combination warm air furnace/electric air conditioning units, but does
not include unit heaters and duct furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A)) DOE
codified the statutory definition of ``warm air furnace'' at 10 CFR
431.72. DOE defines a CWAF as a warm air furnace that is industrial
equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 225,000
British thermal units (``Btu'') per hour or more. 10 CFR 431.72.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the May 2020 RFI
related to the scope of the CWAF test procedure or relevant definitions
for CWAFs. DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of equipment
covered by its CWAF test procedures, or to the relevant definitions.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, DOE currently incorporates by reference in 10 CFR
part 431, subpart D, the following industry test procedures: UL 727-
2006, HI-BTS 2000, ANSI Z21.47-2012, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007.
Updates of each of these test standards have been published since they
were incorporated into the current test procedure. These updated test
standards are UL 727-2018 (update to UL 727-2006), AHRI 1500-2015
(update to HI-BTS 2000), ANSI Z21.47-2021 \6\ (update to ANSI Z21.47-
2016), and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (update to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 103-2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ At the time of the May 2020 RFI publication, ANSI Z21.47-
2016 was the most up-to-date version of ANSI Z21.47. Since then,
ANSI Z21.47-2021 was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted several differences between the
industry standards currently incorporated by reference and the updated
industry standards and sought comment on these changes. 85 FR 26626,
26629-26631. Each change in the updated versions of
[[Page 10731]]
each standard and stakeholder comments in response to the May 2020 RFI
are discussed in the following sections. DOE did not identify any
substantive differences between the currently referenced industry
standards and their updated versions that would pertain to the DOE test
procedure for CWAFs, other than those discussed in the following
sections. In response to the updates to the relevant industry
standards, DOE is proposing to amend the Federal test procedure for
CWAFs to incorporate by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, the
following updated industry standards: UL 727-2018, AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI
Z21.47-2021, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017.
As discussed, the DOE test procedure for CWAFs is specified in 10
CFR 431.76. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish appendix A to
subpart D of 10 CFR part 431. DOE is reorganizing the CWAF setup and
testing provisions currently proscribed in 10 CFR 431.76 into appendix
A to clarify the test provisions that are necessary for determining
thermal efficiency. DOE is reorganizing 10 CFR 431.76 in the way
because, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is also
establishing appendix B for determining the proposed thermal efficiency
two metric. DOE has tentatively determined that creating separate
appendixes for the determination of the two different metrics would
help clarify which appendix corresponds to which metric (i.e., appendix
A is for thermal efficiency, while appendix B is for thermal efficiency
two). Therefore, the establishment of appendix A is editorial and for
reorganization purposes, and appendix A does not deviate from the
current DOE test procedure unless specifically discussed in the
sections below and in section III.E of this document.
1. UL 727-2006
The CWAF test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76 requires use of those
procedures contained in UL 727-2006 that are relevant to the steady-
state efficiency measurement (i.e., UL 727-2006 sections 1 through 3;
37 through 42 (except for sections 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7);
43.2; and 44 through 46). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified two
updates in UL 727-2018 relating to the scope and to thermocouple
tolerance. 85 FR 26626, 26629-26630. In addition, since the publication
of the May 2020 RFI, DOE has identified one additional update in UL
727-2018 related to the definitions incorporated in section 3 of UL
727-2018. These updates, the comments received from stakeholders
regarding these updates, and DOE's proposal for each update are
discussed in detail in the following sections. As previously mentioned
in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to amend the DOE
test procedure to incorporate by reference UL 727-2018.
a. Scope of UL 727
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the language in section 1 of
the UL 727-2018 test standard regarding the scope of the standard has
been changed from that in UL 727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Section 1.3
in UL 727-2006 references the NFPA ``Standard for Installation of Oil-
Burning Equipment,'' NFPA 31, and codes such as the ``Building
Officials Code Administrators International National Mechanical Code,''
the ``State Building Code Council Standard Mechanical Code,'' and the
``International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
Uniform Mechanical Code'' for requirements for the installation and use
of oil-burning equipment. In contrast, Section 1.3 of UL 727-2018
references the NFPA ``Standard for Installation of Oil-Burning
Equipment,'' NFPA 31, the ``International Mechanical Code,'' and the
``Uniform Mechanical Code'' regarding installation and use of oil-
burning equipment.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE explained that DOE defines the scope for
the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and that the scope of
applicability of the DOE test procedure is independent from the scope
defined by UL-727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Although DOE references the
scope of UL 727-2006 in its test provisions at 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2),
only the procedures within UL 727-2006 that are pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state efficiency are included in the DOE test
procedure. 10 CFR 431.76(b). Therefore, any provisions within the scope
of UL 727-2006 that do not relate to the measurement of the steady-
state efficiency do not apply to the DOE test procedure.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether there is a need
to identify more specifically the provisions of UL 727-2006 that apply
to the DOE test procedure. Id. In response, AHRI recommended the
adoption of the most current edition of UL 727 published in 2018 and
stated that it does not believe there is a need to identify provisions
from the 2006 edition in the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE has tentatively determined that the scope section of UL 727-
2018 is inapplicable to the DOE test procedure because the scope of the
DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and only
the provisions in UL 727-2018 that relate to the measurement of steady-
state efficiency apply to the DOE test procedure. While DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 in its entirety, DOE
is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions of UL 727-2018 that
are applicable to the DOE test procedure for CWAF, which would not
include the scope section of that industry standard, since the scope of
the DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a).
b. Thermocouple Tolerance
The DOE test procedure currently incorporates Section 40 of UL 727-
2006 for the test set-up for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. 10
CFR 431.76(c)(2). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 40.6.1 of
UL 727-2018, which pertains to temperature measurements using
potentiometers and thermocouples, has different language from UL 727-
2006 and incorporates different ANSI references. 85 FR 26626, 26629-
26630. Specifically, UL 727-2006 specifies that the thermocouple wire
must conform to the requirements specified in the Initial Calibration
Tolerances for Thermocouples table (i.e., Table 8) in International
Society of Automation (``ISA'') standard MC96.1, ``Temperature-
Measurement Thermocouples'' (``ANSI/ISA MC96.1''). In contrast, UL 727-
2018 states that the thermocouple wire must conform to the requirements
specified in the Tolerance on Initial Values of Electromagnetic Force
(``EMF'') Versus Temperature tables (i.e., Tables 1-3) in ANSI/ASTM
E230/E230M-17 ``Standard Specification for Temperature-Electromotive
Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples,'' (``ASTM E230/
E230M-17''). The thermocouple specifications in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 and
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 are applicable only to the range of
temperatures associated with the types of thermocouples specified in
each of the industry standards. As discussed in the May 2020 RFI, based
on an initial review of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, the temperature ranges
to which the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 specifications apply differ from
the temperature ranges specified in MC96.1 for certain thermocouple
wires. Specifically, ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 includes temperature
ranges and specifications for thermocouple types C, N, and mineral-
insulated metal-sheathed E type, which are not included in ANSI/ISA
MC96.1; and tolerances on initial values of EMF versus temperature for
extension wires and compensating extension wires in ANSI/ASTM E230/
[[Page 10732]]
E230M-17 (i.e., Tables 2 and 3) have been added to Section 40.6.1 of UL
727-2018. Id. at 85 FR 26630.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the changes
resulting from UL 727-2018 referencing ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17.
Specifically, DOE asked for comment on whether the additional
references and changes to the thermocouple and thermocouple extension
wire requirements would impact the representativeness of the measured
test results or test burden of the DOE CWAF test procedure, if adopted.
Id. DOE also sought comment on why Section 40.6.1 in UL 727 was changed
from referencing ANSI/ISA MC96.1 in UL 727-2006, to ANSI/ASTM E230/
E230M in UL 727-2018. DOE requested input on the perceived benefits
and/or drawbacks of such change. 85 FR 26626, 26630.
AHRI encouraged DOE to evaluate how any additions or changes to the
thermocouple and thermocouple extension wire requirements to determine
the full impact any differences may have on current products' ability
to remain compliant. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that
ANSI/ISA MC96.1 is an obsolete standard that was last published in 1982
and was administratively withdrawn by ISA in 2011. Additionally, AHRI
stated that the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard represents current
technologies and is maintained on a periodic basis in accordance with
the ASTM standards development procedures. (AHRI, No. 7 at pp. 2-3)
DOE has confirmed that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 was administratively
withdrawn by ISA. As the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard is the
current industry standard regarding thermocouples, it is expected that
thermocouples currently being used for testing meet the specifications
of that industry standard. Furthermore, DOE notes that the requirements
in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 allow additional thermocouple wires for
testing, in addition to those that were specified in ANSI/ISA MC96.1.
Therefore, DOE expects units tested according to the previous
requirements in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 would subsequently meet those in ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M-17. DOE received no additional comments on this topic.
Absent data and information to indicate that the requirements in ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M-17 are not appropriate or result in a significant
change from the provisions in ANSI/ISA MC96.1. DOE has tentatively
determined that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate ANSI/
ASTME230/E230M-17 would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2) and (3), related to representative use and test burden.
Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test procedure
that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it difficult to
obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 thermocouple provisions
referenced in UL 727-2018 (i.e., Tables 1-3 of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17)
in the DOE test procedure for CWAFs.
c. NFPA 97-2003
Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727-2018 state that the definitions of
terms ``combustible'' and ``noncombustible'' are the definitions found
within NFPA 97M, ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Gas
Vents and Heat Producing Appliances'' (``NFPA 97M''). UL 727-2018 does
not specify which version of NFPA 97M is being referenced in the
standard, nor does it include a publication date of version number of
the NFPA 97M standard. The latest version of NFPA 97M of which DOE is
aware is a version published in 1967. DOE also notes that NFPA's
website does not contain a NFPA 97M publication, and instead contains
NFPA 97-2003 ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents,
and Heat-Producing Appliances'' (NFPA 97-2003). NFPA 97-2003 contains
definitions for ``combustible material'' and ``noncombustible
material,'' however NFPA 97M only contains a definition for
``combustible material.'' DOE notes that there are minor differences
between the definitions for ``combustible material'' in both standards,
and that DOE tentatively concludes that there are no substantial
differences.\7\ Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that UL 727-2018
references an outdated standard (NFPA 97M) and should instead reference
the most up-to-date industry standard (NFPA 97-2003). Therefore, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003, and is proposing
that the references to NFPA 97M that are relevant to the DOE test
procedure (i.e., those made within Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727-
2018) shall instead reference NFPA 97-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NFPA 97-2003 defines ``combustible material'' as ``material
made of or surfaced with wood, compressed paper, plant fiber,
plastics, or other material that can ignite and burn, whether
flameproofed or not, or whether plastered or unplastered.'' (Section
3.3.44 of NFPA 97-2003) NFPA 97M defines ``combustible material'' as
``combustible material, as pertaining to materials adjacent to or in
contact with heat-producing appliances, chimney connectors and vent
connectors, steam and hot-water pipes, and warm-air ducts, means
material made of or surfaced with wood, compressed paper, plant
fibers, or other materials that will ignite and burn. Such material
shall be considered as combustible even though flameproofed, fire-
retardant treated, or plastered.'' (NFPA 97M, part II, p. 193)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is an
outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE seeks
comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003 in 10
CFR part 431, subpart D.
2. HI BTS-2000
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs references sections of HI
BTS-2000 that are relevant to fuel oil analysis and calculating percent
flue loss (i.e., HI BTS-2000 sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and
11.1.6.2). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2) and (e)(2). DOE's test procedure
includes these provisions because DOE has previously determined that UL
727 does not provide a procedure for calculating the percent flue loss
of the furnace, which is necessary in calculating the thermal
efficiency (``TE''), and therefore incorporated by reference provisions
from HI BTS-2000 to calculate the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR
61916, 61917, 61940.
In 2015, HI BTS-2000 was redesignated by AHRI as AHRI 1500-2015. In
the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified two substantive changes in the
sections relevant to the DOE test procedure in the update from HI BTS-
2000 to AHRI 1500-2015 regarding fuel oil analysis and calculation of
flue loss. 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE requested comment generally
regarding whether any of the differences between Sections 8.2.2,
11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 and AHRI 1500-2015 are
relevant to the DOE test procedure, and if so, how such differences
would impact the representativeness of measurements and the associated
test burden of the DOE commercial warm air furnaces test procedure, if
adopted. Id. at 85 FR 26631. The updates to AHRI 1500-2015, the
comments received from stakeholders regarding these updates, and DOE's
proposal for each update are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs. As previously mentioned in section III.B of this document,
DOE is proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1500-2015.
a. Fuel Oil Analysis Requirements
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs includes fuel oil analysis
requirements that reference Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000. 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2). As noted in the May 2020 RFI, Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI
1500-2015 (previously Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000) specifies different
fuel oil
[[Page 10733]]
analysis requirements (i.e., heating value analyzed per ASTM D240-09
\8\ or ASTM D4809-09a,\9\ hydrogen and carbon content analyzed per ASTM
D5291-10,\10\ and density and American Petroleum Institute (``API'')
gravity analyzed per ASTM D396-14a \11\) than are required in Section
8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000 (i.e., heat value, hydrogen and carbon content,
density and API gravity analyzed per ASTM D396-90 \12\). 85 FR 26626,
26631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ASTM D240-09 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'' (``ASTM D240-
09'').
\9\ ASTM D4809-09a ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)''
(``ASTM D4809-09a'').
\10\ ASTM D5291-10 ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum
Products and Lubricants'' (``ASTM D5291-10'').
\11\ ASTM D396-14a ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils''
(``ASTM D396-14a'').
\12\ ASTM D396-90 ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils''
(``ASTM D396-90'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the
differences between the fuel oil analysis requirements in each
standard, whether the differences between the two would yield different
results during testing, and whether adopting AHRI 1500-2015 would add
or reduce burden to the current testing requirements of the DOE test
procedure. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to ensure that fuel oil analysis
requirements are consistent across applicable test procedures. (CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the two standards show no
significant changes and that adoption of AHRI 1500-2015 would not yield
different results during testing. AHRI reiterated its support for the
adoption of the most current edition of this standard, stating that
this edition represents the most current technology and information
available at the time of publication, and that HI BTS-2000 is an
obsolete standard no longer maintained by AHRI. Furthermore, AHRI
stated that it has determined that there is no change in the burden by
adopting AHRI 1500-2015. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has not received any information or data indicating that
updating the HI BTS-2000 reference to AHRI 1500-2015 would result in a
test procedure that would not meet the representativeness requirements
or be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE has confirmed that HI BTS-2000
is no longer maintained by AHRI and has tentatively determined that it
is an obsolete standard. AHRI 1500-2015 represents the industry's most
up to date requirements for fuel oil analysis, and no issues or
differences between the new and old standards that would impact results
or require retesting have been reported to DOE. Because of this, and
based on stakeholder comment, DOE has tentatively determined that
incorporating AHRI 1500-2015 into the DOE test procedure would not
impact the performance of a CWAF under test or require CWAFs to be
retested. Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test
procedure that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it
difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that AHRI 1500-2015, the successor industry
standard to the currently referenced HI BTS-2000, contains fuel oil
analysis requirements that are equivalent to the requirements in HI
BTS-2000 and are currently being used by test facilities. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015, including
its fuel oil analysis specifications.
b. Calculation of Carbon Dioxide in Flue Gas Losses
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 11.1.4 of HI BTS-2000
requires that the carbon dioxide (``CO2'') value used in the
calculation of the dry flue gas loss for oil must be the measured
CO2. 85 FR 26626, 26631. Section C7.2.4 of AHRI 1500-2015
(previously Section 11.1.4 in HI BTS-2000) includes the option to
calculate CO2 using the measured oxygen (``O2'')
value instead of directly measuring the CO2 value. The DOE
test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76(d) requires that CO2 must be
measured.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether the option to
calculate CO2 in AHRI 1500-2015 yields different testing
results compared to using the measured value, and whether it should
adopt the AHRI 1500-2015 provisions that allow for measuring
O2 and calculating CO2. Id. The CA IOUs stated
that measuring CO2 levels is more accurate than calculating
CO2 levels based on O2 measurements. The CA IOUs
also stated that since certified labs and manufacturers are already
equipped to measure CO2, DOE should maintain the current
requirement for direct CO2 measurements. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at
p. 4) AHRI recommended that the option to calculate CO2
based on a measurement of O2 be added to the DOE test
method. AHRI stated that using a calculated CO2 yields
comparable results and is equivalent using a measured CO2
value. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has identified O2 sensors on the market that are
accurate to within 0.1 percent, which is equivalent to or
greater than the accuracy of the CO2 sensors used in labs
that perform CWAF testing. Therefore, if such O2 sensors are
used to measure O2 as a means for calculating
CO2, the value of CO2 obtained through
calculation and the value obtained through direct measurement should be
comparable. DOE also consulted with independent third-party testing
facilities and found that some of these facilities currently use
sensors that measure O2 in the flue gasses and perform an
internal calculation to determine CO2 in the flue gasses. In
addition, AHRI 1500-2015 includes the option to directly measure
CO2, so if that option is less burdensome, test facilities
would continue to be able to rely on it. DOE has tentatively determined
that calculating CO2 using a measured O2 value,
as specified in AHRI 1500-2015, would provide results equivalent to the
CO2 measurement currently required by the DOE test method,
and that allowing a calculated value of CO2 would harmonize
with the latest industry standard without increasing test burden. For
these reasons, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the provisions
in AHRI 1500-2015 that provide an optional procedure for measuring
CO2 based on measured O2 values. DOE also
proposes to establish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update of 10
CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to reflect DOE's
proposal to allow measuring O2, and this includes requiring
that O2 measurements are determined with an instrument that
has a reading error no greater than 0.1 percent. DOE notes
that Table C1 of AHRI 1500-2017 specifies that O2 shall be
measured with an accuracy no greater than 0.1 percent, and
therefore this proposal aligns with the requirements in the industry
standard.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method
specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO2
using a measured O2 value. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal to establish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update of 10
CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to accommodate the
option to calculate CO2 using a measured O2
value.
3. ANSI Z21.47
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the test method in 10 CFR
431.76 for gas-fired CWAFs requires the use of procedures contained in
ANSI Z21.47-2012 that are relevant to the steady-state efficiency
measurement (i.e., Sections 1.1, 2.1 through 2.6, 2.39, and 4.2.1 of
ANSI Z21.47-2012). 81 FR 26626, 26630. DOE noted that the majority of
the test standard provisions relevant to
[[Page 10734]]
DOE's test procedure did not change in the most up-to-date version of
the industry standard at that time, ANSI Z21.47-2016. Id. The revisions
that were made were mostly editorial in nature, including moving
Section 2 in ANSI Z21.47-2012 to Section 5 in ANSI Z21.47-2016, among
other structural changes. In reviewing the 2012 and 2016 versions of
the standard, DOE identified one apparent typographical error in the
2016 version.
Since the publication of the May 2020 RFI, an updated version of
the ANSI Z21.47 standard was published in 2021: ANSI Z21.47-2021. DOE
notes that the only substantive difference between the 2016 and 2021
versions relevant to the sections referenced by the DOE test procedure
is related to burner operating characteristics tests specified in
Section 5.4a of both ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI Z21.47-2021.
The updates to ANSI Z21.47-2012 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI
Z21.47-2021, as well as the scope of the industry standard, are
discussed in further detail in the following sections. As previously
mentioned in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to amend
the DOE test procedure to reference ANSI Z21.47-2021, as it is the most
recent version of the industry test procedure.
a. Scope of ANSI Z21.47
DOE's test procedure for CWAFs currently includes reference to the
scope Section (section 1.1) of ANSI Z21.47-2012. 10 CFR 431.76(c). As
previously stated in section III.B.1.a of this document, DOE defines
the scope for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and DOE's test
procedure for CWAFs requires use of ANSI Z21.47 only for provisions
pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency.
While DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021
in its entirety, DOE is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions
of ANSI Z21.47-2021 that are applicable to the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs, which would not include the scope section of that industry
standard.
b. Typographical Error
Section 2.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and the corresponding Section
5.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2021 provide installation requirements for
horizontal furnaces. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 appears to contain a typographical
error by referencing ``Figure 4, Enclosure types for alcove and closet
installation tests for horizontal furnaces.'' 85 FR 26626, 26630. The
title of Figure 4 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is ``Enclosure types for alcove
and closet installation tests for up-flow and down-flow furnaces,'' and
as titled, Figure 4 applies only to up-flow and down-flow furnaces. It
appears that the appropriate reference in Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI
Z21.47-2016 should be to Figure 5, ``Enclosed types for alcove and
closet installation tests for horizontal furnaces.''
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should refer to Figure 5 in the test
procedure, rather than Figure 4. Id. AHRI, Trane, and Carrier all
agreed that the reference to Figure 4 was a typographical error, and
that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should refer to Figure
5. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
In the update to the industry standard, ANSI Z21.47-2021 corrected
this typographical error by having Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) reference
Figure 5. Therefore, the typographical error in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is no
longer relevant because DOE is now proposing to incorporate by
reference ANSI Z21.47-2021.
c. Propane Nomenclature
DOE also asked for comment regarding any differences between ANSI
Z21.47-2012 and ANSI Z21.47-2016, and specifically whether there are
any differences other than those already identified by DOE in the May
2020 RFI. Id. In response to DOE's request for comment regarding any
additional differences between ANSI Z21.47-2012 and ANSI Z21.47-2016,
AHRI and Trane both noted that in ANSI Z21.47-2016, the term
``propane'' is used in place of the term ``liquified petroleum gas;''
however, the commenters stated that this change is not substantive.\13\
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 2) Carrier did not
specifically comment on this nomenclature change, although it stated
that there are no additional updates in AHRI Z21.47-2016 that would
impact the DOE test procedure, other than those already identified by
DOE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Trane stated that ANSI Z21.47-2016 uses the term
``propane'' in place of the term ``liquified natural gas''. (Trane,
No. 9 at p. 2) However, DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47-2012 uses the
term ``liquified petroleum gas,'' not ``liquified natural gas,'' and
believes this was what Trane intended to note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47-2021 also uses the term ``propane'' in
place of ``liquified petroleum gas.'' DOE tentatively agrees with AHRI
and Trane that the use of ``propane'' instead of ``liquified petroleum
gas'' is for clarification only, and, therefore, does not affect the
test procedure. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
ASNI Z21.47-2021 and specify use of the sections that correspond to the
sections currently referenced in the DOE test procedure (i.e., Sections
5.1 through 5.6, 5.40, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021),), including the
language referring to ``propane'' instead of ``liquefied petroleum
gas.''
d. Burner Operating Characteristics Tests
Section 2.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2012 is referenced in the current DOE
test procedure for CWAFs. 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2). This section states that
three separate tests (each specified in Sections 2.9.1(a), 2.10.1, and
2.11.3, respectively, of ANSI Z21.47-2012) shall be performed prior to
the performance test to ensure that there is no burner flashback and
that the ignition system is working properly. Section 2.4a states that
these three burner operating characteristics tests shall be conducted
with test gas G (i.e., butane-air). ANSI Z21.47-2021 includes a minor
alteration to these provisions, which allows for performing these tests
with a different test gas. Section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously
section 2.4a in ANSI Z21.47-2012) states that the burner operating
characteristics tests shall be performed with either test gas G or, at
the manufacturer's option for testing premixed burners, test gas H
(i.e., propane-air). DOE notes that the burner operating
characteristics tests, including the test gas used for these tests, do
not affect the TE measurement of a CWAF. Therefore, DOE does not have
evidence to deviate from the industry test procedure and proposes to
adopt Section 5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2021, including the previsions
regarding the use of test gas as an option when performing the burner
characteristics tests.
DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section 5.4a of
ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three burner
characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or burden of
the thermal efficiency test.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that DOE's test procedure for gas-
fired condensing CWAFs references Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, 11.3.7.1
and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007. 10 CFR 431.76; 85 FR
26626, 26630. DOE did not identify any substantive changes in the
sections currently referenced by the DOE test procedure in the update
from ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 to ANSI/
[[Page 10735]]
ASHRAE 103-2017; however, DOE asked for comment on whether there were
any differences between the two standards that are relevant to the DOE
test procedure, and if so, how such differences would impact the
representativeness of measurements and the test burden of the DOE test
procedure for CWAFs, if adopted. Id.
AHRI commented that Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 in ANSI/ASHRAE
103-2017 were modified to replace a fixed numerical value with
mathematical expressions, but that there were no significant changes to
the clauses specified in the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3)
Trane stated that equations were modified only in terms from numeric to
mathematical, but that this did not change the outcomes of the
measurements. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that the two equations in Sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 have been modified. ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
2007 includes variables in each equation that are defined as constants
in the list of variables below each equation (e.g., latent heat of
vaporization equals 1053.3 Btu per pound mass (``Btu/lbm'')); in
contrast, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 inserts the constants directly into each
equation. DOE has tentatively determined that the changes to the
equations referenced by DOE (specifically those in clauses 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017) are editorial in nature and do not
change the calculated values. As previously mentioned in section III.B
of this document, DOE is proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, which would include these changes.
C. ``Thermal Efficiency Two'' Metric
As previously discussed, EPCA requires that the test procedures for
CWAFs be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry
test procedure or rating procedure is amended, the Secretary shall
amend the test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent
with the amended industry test procedure or rating procedure unless the
Secretary determines, by rule, published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not
meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden.\14\ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) requires that test procedures be
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3) requires that if
the test procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual
operating costs, such procedure shall provide that such costs shall
be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative
average-use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from
representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate
such equipment during such cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in further detail in the sub-sections that immediately
follow, DOE has tentatively determined that a test procedure that
includes jacket loss and accounts for part-load operation would better
produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs of CWAFs during a representative average use
cycle. CWAFs are typically installed outdoors and as a result jacket
losses can be a significant source of energy loss. Further, for models
with multiple heating stages, performance can vary at the maximum input
heating stage as compared to reduced input stage(s). Therefore, DOE is
proposing to account for these factors by establishing a new test
procedure and metric for CWAFs, termed ``Thermal Efficiency Two''
(``TE2''), which would generally adopt the same changes proposed for
the current test procedure at appendix A, but would additionally
account for jacket losses and part load operation. The proposed TE2
test procedure would account for flue losses in the same manner as the
current TE metric. DOE proposes to establish a new appendix B to 10 CFR
part 431, which would contain the test method for TE2.
If adopted, manufacturers would be permitted to make voluntary
representations using TE2. Mandatory use of the TE2 test procedure
would be required at such time as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such
standards. DOE is, therefore, also proposing to retain the test method
for TE, which is proposed to be modified as discussed elsewhere in this
document, in appendix A for use until such time as TE2 becomes
mandatory.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test procedure
(i.e., appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which would
generally adopt the same changes proposed for the current test
procedure at appendix A and account for flue losses in the same manner
as the current TE metric, but would additionally account for jacket
losses and part load operation.
1. Jacket Loss
As discussed, the current energy efficiency metric for CWAFs is TE.
10 CFR 431.77. TE for a CWAF is defined in 10 CFR 431.72 as 100 percent
minus the percent flue loss, and is calculated, as specified in 10 CFR
431.76(e), by following the procedure specified in Section 2.39 of ANSI
Z21.47-2012 for gas-fired CWAFs and Sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and
11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 for oil-fired CWAFs.\15\ A test method and
calculations for determining the jacket loss percentage (i.e., the
hourly heat loss through the jacket divided by the hourly input and
multiplied by 100) are included in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012
(and the corresponding Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021), which is
referenced in the DOE test procedure. However, the jacket loss
percentage is not included in the equation used to calculate TE.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 10 CFR 431.76(f) (i.e., section 5 of appendix A) includes a
TE adjustment for condensing CWAFs. This adjustment adds the
additional heat gain (expressed in a percent) from condensation of
water vapor to the TE and subtracts the heat loss (expressed as a
percent) due to the flue condensate flowing down the drain.
\16\ DOE notes that Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section
5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 specify a maximum jacket loss of 1.5
percent for any furnace not covered by ``Federal Energy Acts''
(i.e., not regulated by DOE). This provision is not referenced as
part of the DOE test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether jacket loss
should be accounted for in the calculation of TE. Specifically, DOE
asked for comment regarding information and data on whether and to what
extent inclusion of jacket loss would provide results that would more
appropriately reflect energy efficiency during a representative average
use cycle, and also information and data as to the test burden that
would be associated with potential inclusion of jacket loss as part of
the DOE CWAF test procedure. Id
ASAP, NEEA,\17\ and the CA IOUs each supported adding jacket loss
to the TE metric, stating that jacket loss could have a large impact on
overall thermal efficiency. (ASAP, No. 5 at p.1; NEEA, No. 10 at p.3;
CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.4) Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that furnace
jacket losses have significant variations based on the installation
configuration (e.g., stand-alone vs. embedded in a commercial unitary
air-conditioner (``CUAC'')) and the mode of operation used for testing
(e.g., full-load
[[Page 10736]]
vs. part-load), and suggested that DOE consider using the method in
ASHRAE 155P for determining commercial boiler jacket loss for CWAFs, if
this method is repeatable and reproducible. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4)
NEEA stated that its energy modeling showed that improved insulation,
decreased casing leakage, and decreased damper leakage can save up to
11 percent of annual energy consumption, and that this magnitude of
energy savings is comparable with that of a condensing secondary heat
exchanger, which is listed as ``max tech'' in the current CWAF energy
conservation standards rulemaking. NEEA also stated that although CWAFs
are separately regulated from CUACs, the two types of equipment are
often contained within the same rooftop unit (``RTU''), and that
enclosure improvements that would improve efficiency of CWAFs would
also improve efficiency for CUACs. (NEEA, No. 10 at pp. 3-4) ASAP
stated that since the impact of improved insulation is not currently
considered in the test procedure, two CWAF units could have the same
efficiency rating and yet provide significantly different performance
if one unit had better insulation than the other. ASAP further
explained that capturing the impact of improved insulation would
provide testing results that would better reflect the efficiency of
CWAFs during a representative average use cycle, and, in turn, provide
better information to purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ DOE also received comment from NEEA supporting the addition
of jacket loss to the TE metric in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
(NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at pp. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI, Carrier,\18\ and Trane opposed incorporating jacket loss into
the TE metric and asserted that it would have a minimal effect on
performance. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 4 at pp. 1-2; Trane,
No. 9 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane stated that including jacket loss in the
TE calculation would result in minimal change in TE and would lower the
TE of the CWAF. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5 Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) Carrier also
stated that for larger commercial equipment, factory installed options
are available that can increase the size of the cabinet downstream of
the furnace section, and that test burden on manufacturers would
increase significantly if all options that impact jacket size are
required to be tested. Carrier asserted that DOE would have to
demonstrate the energy benefit since jacket losses are relatively low
and their inclusion would result in increased test burden, different
design requirements, and significantly higher cost for the manufacturer
and the end customer if the minimum efficiency standards did not
materially change. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DOE also received comment from Carrier opposing this in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, similarly, stating that jacket
loss would have a minimal effect on performance, and that this
minimal affect does not justify its inclusion the TE. (Carrier,
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2020, DOE published an energy conservation standards RFI
(``May 2020 ECS RFI'') for air-cooled CUACs, commercial unitary heat
pumps, and CWAFs. 85 FR 27941. DOE received multiple comments from
stakeholders in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that are related to
jacket loss and that are relevant to DOE's consideration of whether to
incorporate jacket losses into the test procedure for CWAFs.
Specifically, the Joint Advocates recommended that DOE amend the CWAF
test procedure to include effects of improved insulation.\19\ (Joint
Advocates, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at p. 3) AHRI stated that it does
not see a justification to include jacket loss in the measured energy
efficiency, and that there would be minimal, if any, change in the
usable heat provided to the end user if jacket loss is added to the TE
calculation. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 4) Goodman stated
that jacket losses should not be included in the CWAF test procedure,
and that inclusion of jacket loss would require new and more difficult
testing and increased burden. (Goodman, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0017 at
pp. 2-3) Lastly, Goodman recommended DOE not include jacket loss in the
DOE test procedure because ASHRAE 90.1-2019 requires that CWAF jacket
loss not exceed 0.75 percent of the CWAF input rating, and therefore
any effect on measured performance would be small enough to not justify
the added burden. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Join Advocates include the following organizations:
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Goodman's reference to the jacket loss requirement for
CWAFs in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, DOE notes that as part of a final rule
published on May 16, 2012 (``May 2012 final rule'') amending energy
conservation standards and test procedures for commercial heating, air-
conditioning, and water-heating equipment, DOE addressed the ASHRAE
90.1 requirement pertaining to jacket loss.\20\ In the May 2012 final
rule, DOE determined that if ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for
equipment for which an efficiency level is already specified (e.g., a
jacket loss requirement in addition to a TE requirement), DOE does not
have the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment
type. 77 FR 28928, 28937. Specifically, DOE explained that pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the Secretary has authority to amend the energy
conservation standards for specified equipment, but under 42 U.S.C.
6311(18), the statute's definition of the term ``energy conservation
standard'' is limited to: (A) A performance standard that prescribes a
minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use
for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product. DOE stated
that the language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance
standard or a single design standard. As such, DOE concluded that a
standard that establishes both a performance standard and a design
requirement is beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority. Id.\21\
Additionally, DOE previously considered including jacket loss in the TE
calculation in a NOPR published on December 13, 1999. 64 FR 69598,
69601 (``December 1999 NOPR''). In the December 1999 NOPR, DOE did not
propose to include jacket loss in the TE calculation, having determined
that, consistent with adopting industry test standards referenced in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, the statute's intent is to assign the
same meaning to the term ``thermal efficiency'' as its definition in
the corresponding referenced standards, i.e., 100 percent minus percent
flue loss. Id. DOE's determination in the December 1999 NOPR was
informed by a public workshop held on April 14 and 15, 1998, and what
DOE understood to be
[[Page 10737]]
the consensus of the participants that TE should not include jacket
loss, because ANSI Z21.47 defined TE without jacket loss. Id. As such,
DOE acknowledges that the TE as currently determined under ANSI Z21.47
does not include jacket loss even if it is a requirement of ASHRAE 90.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The version of ASHRAE 90.1 that was available at the time
of the May 2012 final rule (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010) includes the
same 0.75-percent jacket loss requirement that is in ASHRAE 90.1-
2019.
\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, DOE is generally required to adopt a test procedure for
CWAFs that is consistent with the generally accepted industry testing
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such
industry test procedure (i.e., the test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1) is updated, DOE must amend its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would
not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and (C))
Additionally, EPCA also requires that DOE periodically evaluate the
test procedures for CWAFs 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. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
For the reasons that follow, DOE has tentatively determined that
incorporating a jacket loss measurement into the test procedure and
metric for CWAFs would improve the representativeness of the test
procedure by capturing an attribute of CWAFs other than combustion
efficiency (i.e., jacket loss) that can have a substantive impact on
the overall energy use of CWAFs.
The current TE is essentially a measure of combustion efficiency.
However, the energy efficiency of the equipment is influenced by
factors in addition to combustion efficiency (i.e., jacket loss).
Jacket loss contributes to the overall energy use of a CWAF and is,
therefore, one of the parameters that determines a CWAF's overall
efficiency. Heat loss through the cabinet (i.e., jacket loss) is
proportional to the thickness of the insulation and/or insulative
material used. DOE tentatively agrees with ASAP that CWAFs with the
same TE, as determined under the current DOE test procedure, could have
different performance in the field if one unit has different insulation
than the other. DOE also notes that the vast majority of CWAFs are
installed within CUACs located on rooftops, and that these outdoor
installations will result in greater jacket loss than CWAFs installed
indoors because of the colder ambient air. As such, DOE tentatively
agrees with the CA IOUs that performance of a CWAF will vary depending
on installation location because of different levels of jacket loss.
Differences in performance based on differences in jacket loss are not
captured by the current DOE test procedure and metric. Incorporating
jacket loss into a TE2 metric will therefore account for differences in
CWAF insulation. Additionally, weighting jacket loss based on
installation location, which DOE discusses more in the following
paragraphs, will account for the differences in jacket loss across
various installation locations.
DOE is proposing that, for CWAFs that are designed for outdoor
installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized,
or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow) or designed for
indoor installation in an unheated space (i.e., isolated combustion
systems),\22\ jacket loss shall be measured in accordance with the
Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. DOE is proposing to multiply this
measured jacket loss by jacket loss factors to account for differences
in installation location. DOE proposes that a jacket loss factor of 1.7
for CWAFs designed for indoor installation in an unheated space (i.e.,
isolated combustion system), or 3.3 for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation (including, but not limited to, CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow) be
multiplied by the measured jacket loss before subtracting the product
from thermal efficiency (i.e., TE2 is calculated as 100 percent minus
flue and jacket loss, when the jacket loss is the measured jacket loss
multiplied by the jacket loss factor). DOE is also proposing that the
jacket loss shall be zero for CWAFs designed for installation indoors
within a heated space because the heat loss through the CWAF's jacket
would go directly into the heated space. DOE notes that this approach
is consistent with the approach taken in appendix N to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430 for measuring AFUE in residential furnaces, which
references ASHRAE 103. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined these
are the appropriate jacket loss factors to use based on the values
found in Section 11.2.11 of ASHRAE 103-2017, and is proposing to use
these factors in newly proposed appendix B.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This description of a CWAF designed for outdoor
installation is consistent with a residential weatherized warm air
furnace specified in 10 CFR 430.2.
\23\ DOE notes that the jacket loss factor in Section 11.2.11 of
ASHRAE 103-2017 for equipment intended for indoor installation
within a heated space is 0.0. As such, jacket loss would be
calculated as zero. Therefore, as previously mentioned, DOE is
proposing the jacket loss would be assumed to be zero for CWAFs
intended for indoor installation within a heated space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, DOE references Section 2.39 of ANSI
Z21.47-2012 (now Section 5.40 in ANSI Z21.47-21), which includes a test
procedure for determining jacket loss. DOE does not currently reference
Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which includes the equation used to
calculate jacket loss. Annex J also includes Figures J.1 and J.2 which
are used to determine the coefficient of convection and coefficient of
radiation for the surface, which are two coefficients used in the
calculation of jacket loss. DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the jacket loss test procedure specified in Section 5.40 of
ANSI Z21.47-2021, which includes a reference to Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-
2021, for both gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs. Specifically, DOE is
proposing to adopt this test procedure for measuring jacket loss when
testing to newly proposed appendix B to determine TE2.
To the extent that manufacturers participate in the industry
certification program under ASHRAE 90.1, such manufacturers should
already be measuring jacket loss according to the test procedure
proposed in this NOPR due to the prescriptive jacket loss requirement
in ASHRAE 90.1. Based on a review of models on the market, DOE found
the majority of CWAFs indicate in product literature that they comply
with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1, which indicates that many CWAFs
are already tested for jacket loss.
DOE is proposing to adopt the industry test standard for
determining jacket loss that DOE has tentatively determined is
currently being used by industry, and as such would not be unduly
burdensome. Additionally, testing according to appendix B would be
mandatory only at such time as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such
standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to incorporate jacket loss in the
proposed TE2 metric.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be
measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor
[[Page 10738]]
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space when determining TE2 pursuant to newly proposed appendix B, and
on its proposed method for measuring jacket loss. DOE also seeks
comment on its proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs intended for indoor
installation within a heated space would be assumed to be zero, and on
its proposed jacket loss factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space.
2. Part-Load Performance
In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received comments from NEEA
and the CA IOUs encouraging DOE to adopt a metric and test procedure
that account for operation at part load. (NEEA, No. 10 pp. 1-2; CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA and the CA IOUs both asserted that CWAFs
spend the majority of their time in a low fire mode (i.e., part load)
and that adopting a metric that includes part load would better
represent the operation of CWAFs in the field. Id. More specifically,
NEEA asserted that CWAFs often spend 10 to 20 percent of their time at
high fire mode (i.e., full load), and that DOE should update its test
procedure to include reduced firing rates (i.e., part-load) and
seasonal performance so that the test procedure is more representative
of an average use cycle.\24\ NEEA recommended a seasonal metric be
used, asserting that jacket loss, damper leakage, and fan performance
would be affected by CWAFs installed in colder climates. (NEEA, No. 10
p.2) NEEA also commented that other DOE test procedures for HVAC
equipment have been transitioning to measure part-load and seasonal
performance, and that the CWAF test procedure should likewise be
updated. (NEEA, No. 10 p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that cyclic losses due
to cycling of the burners negatively impacts efficiency of a CWAF, and
that accounting for this would increase the representativeness of the
test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NEEA referenced the following energy model: Energy Modeling
of Commercial Gas Rooftop Units in Support of CSA P.8 Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI commented that any additional requirements beyond the current
test procedure provisions would be a burden to manufacturers, and that
any changes that affect testing or calculations are likely to be overly
burdensome compared to any benefits, due to what AHRI characterized as
the relatively small market for these appliances. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
77)
DOE reviewed the current CWAF market and found that the vast
majority of CWAFs certified to DOE have two or more stages of heating.
DOE notes that CWAFs with two or more stages can operate at reduced
firing rates to meet the building load. Under the current DOE test
procedure, TE reflects the efficiency of the burner and the efficiency
of the heat exchanger at full load. When a CWAF burner operates at a
reduced input rate (i.e., part load), the ratio of heat exchanger
surface area to burner input rate is increased (in comparison to
operation at full load), which theoretically should increase the
efficiency of the CWAF compared to operating at full load, if other
aspects of operation are consistent. However, depending on the air-fuel
ratio or other factors impacting combustion efficiency, the combustion
efficiency could decrease, and therefore, the change in performance,
including whether efficiency is improved or reduced at part-load, could
vary from model to model. Therefore, CWAF part-load performance has the
potential to be substantively different from full-load performance and
including part-load performance in the measurement of CWAF efficiency
would allow the efficiency metric to account for this potential
difference and be more representative. To provide for measured test
results that are more representative of the average use cycle of CWAFs
that are two-stage and modulating burner units (i.e., CWAFs that
operate at less than full load), DOE proposes to include a part-load
measurement in the test procedure proposed at newly proposed appendix
B. DOE has tentatively determined that including a part-load test
procedure within the DOE test procedure would better capture how CWAFs
operate in the field and would be more representative of the
performance of CWAFs during an average use cycle, particularly for
models that have two or more stages of heating. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to include both part-load and full-load operation tests in
the newly proposed appendix B.
Specifically, DOE proposes to require that, for two-stage or
modulating burner models, the flue loss of the unit under test be
determined as specified in section 2 of appendix A (formerly 10 CFR
431.76(c)) at both the maximum and minimum input rates on the nameplate
of the unit. The jacket loss (as described in section III.C.1 of this
document) would be determined at the maximum input rate and optionally
be determined at the minimum input rate. If the jacket loss were
determined only at the maximum input rate, it would be assigned an
equivalent value at the minimum input rate. TE2 would then be
calculated as the average of the efficiencies determined at both the
maximum and minimum input rates using the flue loss and jacket loss
determined at each input rate.
Averaging the performance at the maximum and minimum input rate
weights both full-load and part-load CWAF operation equally (i.e.,
representing CWAF operation at full load 50 percent of the time and
part load 50 percent of the time). DOE considered the relationship
between full-load operation and part-load operation presented in the
comments from NEEA. However, the 10 to 20 percent estimate of operation
at full load referenced by NEEA was based on data for climate regions
represented by Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. DOE has tentatively
determined that operating conditions represented by these climate zones
are not representative of the United States, which includes more
temperate climate zones.
DOE also considered relying on the part-load and full-load burner
operating hour calculations for two-stage and modulating furnaces
specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. However, DOE
tentatively determined that this approach would not be representative
because the calculations specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
2017 include assumptions that are specific to residential furnaces
(e.g., national average heating load hours) that may not be
representative for CWAFs. For example, CWAFs may operate more
frequently during business hours, whereas a residential furnace may
operate more frequently during off-business hours when people are more
likely to be at home.
DOE tentatively finds that CWAFs spend a substantive amount of time
in part-load. Absent nationally representative data or information to
support weighting factors for full-load and part-load performance that
are more representative of an average use cycle, DOE has tentatively
determined that weighting both equally is appropriate at this time,
however DOE seeks comment on this tentative determination.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test procedure
to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also seeks
comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging performance at
the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any related data. DOE
also requests comment on alternate weighting values, including those
discussed, that may be more nationally representative of an
[[Page 10739]]
average use, along with any relevant data.
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs does not include any measurement of electrical consumption in its
determination of the efficiency of CWAFs, including electrical
consumption of blowers/fans, controls, or other auxiliary electrical
consumption. 85 FR 26626, 26632. DOE explained that CWAFs are typically
part of a single package that also includes air-conditioning equipment,
and that the test method and metrics for commercial air-conditioning
and heating equipment (i.e., integrated energy efficiency ratio
(``IEER'')) accounts for the electrical consumption of the blower; as
such, the electrical consumption of the blower has not been included in
the CWAF test method. Id. DOE noted that any auxiliary electrical
consumption associated only with the furnace operation when heating is
not accounted for in any metric. Id.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether it should
consider including the electrical consumption of CWAFs in the CWAF
efficiency metric or test procedure, as well as on the merits and
burdens of such approach. Id. DOE also asked for comment on which
components' electrical consumption would be appropriate to include,
noting that the electrical consumption of the CWAF blower is typically
factored into other commercial equipment efficiency metrics and test
procedures. Id.
ASAP, the CA IOUs, and NEEA recommended that DOE account for
electrical consumption of the CWAF. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2; ASAP, No.
5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) More specifically, ASAP urged DOE to
ensure that all electrical consumption associated with CWAFs (including
CWAF auxiliary electrical consumption) is captured in either the CWAF
test procedure or the test procedure for CUACs. Specifically, regarding
auxiliary electrical consumption, ASAP stated that capturing auxiliary
electrical consumption would better reflect the efficiency of CWAFs
during a representative average use cycle, thus providing better
information to purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP also stated that
the term sheet from the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') working group for CUACs and CWAFs
contained a recommendation that DOE amend the test procedure for CUACs
to better capture total fan energy use, including the energy use
associated with the supply fan operation when the unit is in heating
mode. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also noted that the ASRAC term
sheet includes a recommendation to update the CUAC test procedure to
``better represent total fan energy use, including considering (a)
alternative external static pressures; and (b) operation other than
mechanical cooling and heating.'' (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No.
8 at pp. 2-3) Similarly, NEEA stated that electrical energy should be
considered in total energy consumption in all operating modes, citing
that RTUs spend the majority of their time in ventilation mode, and
that electrical energy consumption of an RTU is 4 to 11 percent of
total seasonal energy consumption. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) Additionally,
NEEA stated that the current CWAF test procedure does not capture many
energy efficient features that are currently available on the market
and, therefore, does not effectively allow manufacturers to distinguish
more efficient equipment.\25\ NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider a
calculation-based test procedure to include other energy using
components and operating modes. (NEEA, No. 10 at pp. 3-4) DOE also
received comment from the Joint Advocates in response to the May 2020
ECS RFI, recommending DOE amend the CWAF test procedure to capture
auxiliary electrical consumption. (Joint Advocates, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0023 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NEEA stated that these efficient components include low
leak dampers, improved insulation or thermally broken insulation,
variable speed fans, economizing capability, improved controls,
demand control ventilation, modulating heat/high turndown furnaces,
and heat recovery. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI, Carrier, and Trane recommended against including the
electrical consumption of CWAFs in the efficiency metric or test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 4
at p. 3) AHRI stated that the electrical energy consumption of CWAF
components is minimal compared to the fossil fuel energy used for
heating. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane explained that combustion fan
motor wattage is very small as a percentage of these commercial
furnaces (Trane, No. 9 at p. 4) More specifically, AHRI stated that the
energy consumption of a combustion fan is a fraction of a percent of
the total energy consumption. Carrier similarly asserted that the power
draw of the inducer fan used to create the draft through the furnace is
minimal compared to the energy of combustion. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3)
AHRI and Trane asserted that the extra burden from retesting and
certifying to a new metric is not worth adding electrical consumption
into a new efficiency metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p.
4) AHRI and Carrier noted that CWAFs are often sold as part of a
packaged unit (i.e., within a CUAC), and that the blower and fans are
included in the performance measurement of the CUAC. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
6; Carrier No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI also noted that the total air-
conditioning hours are far greater than the total heating hours. (AHRI,
No. 7 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with stakeholders that CWAFs are typically installed
within a CUAC, and that the energy consumption of the supply air fan is
captured in the current CUAC test procedure. DOE notes that the energy
consumption of the supply air fan during furnace-only operation is not
captured within the CUAC test procedure; however, DOE has tentatively
determined that such energy consumption would be better addressed in a
future amendment to the CUAC test procedure, rather than also
integrating supply fan consumption into the CWAF test procedure. This
approach would allow for the supply air fan's energy consumption to be
captured in a single test procedure. Similarly, DOE notes that many of
the components that were referenced by NEEA are related to CUAC
performance. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that these
components would be better addressed a future CUAC test procedure
amendment. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined not to include
supply fan energy consumption in the CWAF metric.
DOE also considered whether to include the electrical energy
consumption of other auxiliary components of CWAFs within the DOE test
procedure. In a final rule published on May 4, 2016, amending the
energy conservation standards for CWAFs, DOE analyzed the auxiliary
energy consumption of CWAFs, finding that on average, auxiliary power
consumption for the draft inducer was 100 W for gas-fired CWAFs and 220
W for oil-fired CWAFs. (See section 7B.3 of the Final Rule TSD, EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0021-0050.) DOE also estimated the power consumption of
other auxiliary components (e.g., 25 W for spark ignition). Id. This
auxiliary power consumption, as compared to the fossil fuel energy
input rate, represents a fraction of a percent of the total energy
consumption of a CWAF. As such, improvements in electrical power
consumption, if integrated into TE, would have a negligible impact on
the measured energy efficiency of a CWAF. DOE has tentatively
determined that incorporating electrical consumption into the
measurement of CWAF
[[Page 10740]]
efficiency would not substantially improve the representativeness of
the test procedure and would increase testing burden. DOE also notes
that including electrical consumption in the determination of CWAF
efficiency would be a significant deviation from how CWAF efficiency is
currently measured, for which DOE must demonstrate ``clear and
convincing evidence'' that such change would more fully comply with the
requirements of EPCA. Because DOE has tentatively concluded it is
unlikely that inclusion of electrical energy in the TE metric would
impact the thermal efficiency rating, DOE tentatively concludes that
such a change would not meet the clear and convincing threshold
established by DOE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to update the CWAF
test procedure to include electrical consumption.
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Multiple Vent Hoods
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that neither the DOE test procedure
nor the ANSI Z21.47 test procedure specifies how to perform the flue
temperature measurement if a unit has multiple vent hoods, and that
models are currently available on the market with multiple vent hoods.
85 FR 26626, 26631. DOE notes that in this NOPR, as in the May 2020
RFI, DOE's references to a ``vent hood'' are synonymous with a ``vent
pipe.''
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on how CWAFs with more
than one vent hood are currently tested and whether it should consider
adding provisions in the DOE test procedures to address measuring the
flue gas temperature of a unit with multiple vent hoods. DOE also asked
how best to measure flue gas temperature in such units. Id.
AHRI stated that the manufacturers' installation instructions
should include information regarding the use of multiple vents and each
vent's functionality. AHRI stated that if the vent hood modules are the
same size, the results are averaged; however, if they are different
sizes, the test results for each vent hood should be adjusted
accordingly before averaging the results. AHRI stated that, for
example, if one vent is intended to exhaust two-thirds of the flue
product and the second is intended to exhaust the remaining one-third,
then this should be specified in the installation instructions, and a
weighted average used to determine the flue gas temperature. (AHRI, No.
7 at p. 5)
Trane stated that DOE should use the instructions in both the
installation operation manuals as well as the supplemental testing
instruction (``STI'') supplied when a model is certified to DOE for
determining how to measure flue gas for models with multiple vent
hoods. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier stated that the procedure it uses for models with multiple
vent hoods is to analyze combustion products and measure flue
temperature separately in each vent hood, and then use the averaged
data of all vents to calculate TE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE tentatively agrees that results should be measured in each vent
hood and weighted proportionally to the size of each vent hood when
calculating TE. For units with multiple vent hoods of the same size,
this approach would result in the measurements being averaged.
Therefore, in order to ensure consistency between tests, DOE is
proposing to add instructions to clarify the test method for models
with multiple vent hoods. DOE proposes that measurements used to
calculate TE (e.g., flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses), be made separately for each vent hood, and that they are
weighted proportionally to the size of each vent hood when calculating
flue loss. Further, DOE proposes that test requirements, such as
determining when equilibrium conditions occur based on the flue gas
temperature, are determined based these weighted measurements. This
proposal is predicated on the assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
hood size. DOE recognizes that vent hood ``size'' may be measured in
various ways, and therefore is proposing to specify that vent hoods
size would be determined by calculating the outlet face area of the
vent hood. As noted, DOE is proposing this additional procedure for
clarification and to improve test repeatability, as ANSI Z21.47-2021
does not address flue temperature measurements in CWAFs with multiple
vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in the
DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
size of the vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks comment on its proposal
to compare vent hood outlet face areas to determine vent hood size.
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space Limitations
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 2.16 of ANSI Z21.47-
2012 and Section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 both specify measuring the
flue gas temperature in the vent pipe using nine individual
thermocouples placed in specific locations; however, these sections do
not provide guidance on how to measure the flue gas temperature if the
vent size constrains the space where the thermocouples are to be placed
to the point that normal operation of the unit is inhibited when nine
thermocouples are installed. 85 FR 26626, 26631-26632. DOE notes this
is also true of Section 5.16 in ANSI Z21.47-2021. In the May 2020 RFI,
DOE noted that a vent may be so small (if, for example, a unit has
multiple vents) that it is not practical to measure the flue gas
temperature using nine thermocouples. DOE also explained that during
testing of one unit with a particularly small vent hood, DOE found that
placing nine \26\ thermocouples was not practical due to space
limitations. 81 FR 26626, 26631-26632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the May 2020 RFI, DOE stated that DOE found that placing
more than four thermocouples for that particular test unit was not
practical due to space limitations. 85 FR 26626, 26632. However,
this was a typographical error; DOE intended to state that placing
nine thermocouples (not more than four) was not practical in this
instance due to space limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on how CWAFs with vent
size constraints are currently tested and whether DOE should consider
adding provisions in the DOE test procedure to address measuring the
flue gas temperature when space limitations preclude the use of nine
thermocouples. DOE also asked how best to measure flue gas temperature
in such units. 81 FR 26626, 26632.
AHRI stated that the manufacturer's test instructions may specify
that the number of thermocouples be limited due to space constraints
within the draft hood. In such instances, the testing laboratory will
follow the manufacturer's test instructions for set-up. (AHRI, No. 7 at
p. 6) Trane stated that it believes the manufacturer will communicate
how measurements were performed either in the STI or installation
manual to achieve the performance metric rating that is certified, and
that DOE should follow those instructions. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier acknowledged that, at times, it is impossible to fit nine
thermocouples adequately in a smaller vent and stated that it uses the
procedure from ANSI/ASHRAE 103, which specifies the number of
thermocouples depending on
[[Page 10741]]
the diameter of the vent. Carrier further stated that ANSI/ASHRAE 103
requires five thermocouples for vents 2 inches in diameter and smaller,
nine thermocouples for vents greater than 2 inches in diameter, and 17
thermocouples for a stack measurement. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
In order to ensure consistency and repeatability in the application
of the test method for models with small vent hoods, DOE recognizes the
need to specify how to perform the DOE test procedure when nine
thermocouples do not fit inside the vent hood. Although AHRI and Trane
suggest allowing the manufacturer to specify how the thermocouples
should be installed, this could lead to inconsistent test set-up and
results for models with small vents if manufacturers choose different
approaches for testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to align its test
procedure with ASHRAE 103-2017. More specifically, DOE is proposing to
specify in the DOE test procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired
CWAFs, the flue gas temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood
using nine individual thermocouples when the vent hood is larger than 2
inches in diameter and may optionally be measured using five individual
thermocouples when the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
five thermocouples may optionally be used.
3. Input Rate Tolerance
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that its test procedure for gas-
fired CWAFs references the test method in ANSI Z21.47, and that the
thermal efficiency test in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47 requires that
the test be conducted at normal inlet pressure and at 100 percent of
normal input rate (i.e., the maximum hourly Btu input rating specified
by the manufacturer). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(1). DOE noted that no tolerance
is provided on the input rate in section 2.39, so when taken literally,
this provision could be interpreted to require that the firing rate be
exactly 100 percent of the nominal input rate. DOE further noted that
other types of fossil-fuel-fired equipment such as commercial packaged
boilers, commercial water heaters, residential water heaters,
residential furnaces, and residential boilers require the input rate
during testing to be within 2 percent of the nameplate
input rate. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether industry uses
a tolerance when testing to ANSI Z21.47, and if so, what tolerance is
used. DOE also asked whether a tolerance should be specified for the
input rate during testing of gas-fired CWAFs, and if so, what tolerance
would be appropriate. Id.
Carrier stated that it uses a minor plus-and-minus tolerance on
input rate and that it understands that this approach is not included
in ANSI Z21.47, but it has been used on furnace testing at Carrier for
many years.\27\ (No. 4 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI both commented that
section 5.4.4 \28\ of ANSI Z21.47-2016 includes a 2 percent
tolerance on input rate. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs recommend including a tolerance of 2 percent of
rated input for gas-fired CWAFs, consistent with the commercial boiler
test methods described in AHRI 1500-2015. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Carrier did not provide a specific value for the tolerance
it uses for CWAF testing.
\28\ DOE understands commenters to have intended to reference
section 5.5.4 as there is no section 5.4.4 in ANSI Z21.47-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Sections 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 and 5.5.4 of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 both specify a 2 percent tolerance on the
manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating, and that the same
2 percent input rate tolerance is also specified in Section
2.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which is currently incorporated by reference
in the current DOE test procedure. As discussed in section III.B.3 of
this document, DOE is proposing to reference the Sections of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 that correspond to the sections in ANSI Z21.47-2012 that
are currently referenced, including Section 5.5 of ANSI Z21.47-2021.
This proposal, therefore, incorporates Section 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-
2021, which includes the 2 percent tolerance on the
manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating.
4. Flue Loss Determination
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section 5.40 ANSI Z21.47-2021
reference Annex I for the determination of flue loss that is used in
the TE calculation. Annex I includes two methods for determining flue
loss--one method that uses a calculation, and one method that uses
nomographs shown in Figures I.1 and I.2 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. The
nomograph method may only be used when the heating value, specific
gravity, and flue gas CO2 of a CWAF fall within a specified
range.\29\ If these conditions are met, either calculation method may
be used. DOE notes that the option to use either method may result in
issues with repeatability if the determination of flue loss varies when
using each method. Therefore, DOE is proposing in section 4 of appendix
A (formerly 10 CFR 431.76(e)) that the calculation method must be used
when determining flue loss. DOE is proposing use of the calculation
method rather than the nomograph method because the nomograph method is
not applicable for all tests, and the calculation method is likely to
provide better repeatability by eliminating subjective differences in
interpreting the nomograph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Heating value for natural gas or propane must be 970-1100
Btu/ft\3\ or 2466-2542 Btu/ft\3\, respectively. Specific gravity for
natural gas or propane must be 0.57-0.70 or 1.522-15.74,
respectively. Ultimate carbon dioxide for natural gas or propane
must be 11.7-12.2% or 13.73-13.82%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation method
specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when determining flue
loss, and not the nomograph method.
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CWAF for determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-
date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE
test procedure, and by providing additional detail for the test setup
for models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having
space limitations. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed
amendments for determining TE would not be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct, and that the proposed test procedures for
this equipment are consistent with the industry test procedure updates.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the test
procedure for determining TE would improve the representativeness,
accuracy, and reproducibility of the test results and would not be
unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE expects that the
proposed test procedure in appendix A for measuring and TE would not
increase testing costs.
DOE also is proposing to establish a new TE2 metric and establish a
new appendix B, which would include the test procedure for determining
TE2. DOE estimates that the additional test cost due to the additional
part-load test and jacket loss test required for the TE2
[[Page 10742]]
metric would be $2,200, compared to the current DOE test procedure,
which DOE estimates to be $4,200 at a third-party laboratory (i.e., a
total estimated cost of $6,400 per tested unit for the amended TE2 test
procedure). Therefore, assuming two units are tested per basic
model,\30\ DOE estimates the testing cost associated with the newly
proposed appendix B test procedure to be $12,800 per basic model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Per the sampling requirements specified at 10 CFR
429.11(b), manufacturers are required to test at least two units to
determine the rating for a basic model, except if only one unit of
the basic model is produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 10 CFR 429.41, CWAF manufacturers may elect to
use an alternative efficiency determination method (``AEDM'') to rate
models for the TE2 metric, which significantly reduces testing costs to
industry. DOE estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop and
validate an AEDM to determine TE2 for CWAF equipment to be $17,300. DOE
estimates a cost of $46 per basic model for determining energy
efficiency using a validated AEDM.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE's estimated initial cost to develop and validate an
AEDM includes (1) 80 hours to develop the AEDM based on existing
simulation tools; (2) an additional 16 hours to validate the AEDM
for two basic models at the cost of an engineering calibration
technician wage of $46 per hour; and (3) the cost of third-party
testing of two units per validation class (as required in 10 CFR
429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per basic model cost
to determine efficiency using an AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic
model at the cost of an engineering calibration technician wage of
$46 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed
appendix B test procedure and TE2 calculation would alter the measured
energy efficiency of a CWAF.
As previously discussed, the proposed test procedure provisions
regarding TE2 would not be mandatory unless and until compliance is
required with amended energy conservation standards that rely on TE2.
Because DOE is not referencing a prevailing industry test procedure for
determination of TE2, DOE expects that the updated DOE test procedure
in appendix B would increase the testing burden on CWAF manufacturers
if use of appendix B were required in the future. However, DOE has
tentatively determined that the test procedure amendments, if
finalized, would not require manufacturers to redesign any of the
covered equipment, would not require changes to how the equipment is
manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the equipment.
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the test
procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to DOE's
estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the
testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as
compared to the current test procedure.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part
430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make appropriate
modifications to the DOE test procedure through the rulemaking process.
The current test procedures for CWAF at 10 CFR 431.76 incorporates
by reference UL 727-2006 for testing oil-fired CWAFs, HI BTS-2000 for
performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired
CWAFs, ANSI Z21.47-2012 for testing gas-fired CWAFs, and ANSI/ASHRAE
103-2007 for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. As discussed, the
proposed amendments to the DOE test procedure for determining TE would
update the references to the incorporated industry testing standards.
Also as discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt a new metric, TE2, for
CWAFs. There is no industry testing standard that provides for
determining TE2. However, the test procedure provisions that provide
the measured inputs for determining TE2 rely on the same industry
testing standards DOE is proposing to reference for determining TE.
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed
updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test
procedure for CWAFs.
DOE recognizes that adopting industry standards with modifications
imposes a burden on industry (i.e., manufacturers face increased costs
if the DOE modifications require different testing equipment or
facilities). DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test
procedure should consider and be harmonized further with the most
recent relevant industry standards for CWAFs, and whether there are any
changes to the Federal test method that would provide additional
benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and
burdens of, or any other comments regarding adopting of, any industry/
voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without
modification.
G. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
To the extent the modified test procedure proposed in this document
is required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency
standards, use of the modified test procedure, if finalized, would not
be required until the compliance date of updated standards.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (``E.O.'')
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive
order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in
OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure
rulemaking.
[[Page 10743]]
1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
CWAFs in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA 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 C \32\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This
equipment includes CWAFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must
amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such
amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAFs, 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. (42 U.S.C.
63146314(a)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CWAFs, the Small Business Administration
(``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those entities
classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE
used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any
small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13
CFR part 121. The equipment covered by this rule are classified under
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code
333415,\33\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In
13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry
description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--
table-size-standards (Last accessed July 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE's analysis relied on
publicly available databases to identify potential small businesses
that manufacture equipment covered in this rulemaking. DOE utilized the
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System (``MAEDbS''),\34\ EPA's ENERGY STAR Database,\35\ and the DOE's
Certification Compliance Database (``CCD'') \36\ to identify to
manufacturers. DOE identified eight original equipment manufacturers
(``OEMs'') of CWAFs affected by this rulemaking. DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the definition of a ``small business'' or
are foreign-owned and operated. Of these eight OEMs, DOE identified one
small, domestic OEM for consideration. DOE used subscription-based
business information tools to determine headcount and revenue of the
small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ MAEDbS can be accessed at
www.cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(Last accessed July 15, 2021).
\35\ ENERGY STAR-certified products can be found in the ENERGY
STAR database accessed at www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-water-heaters/results (Last accessed July 15,
2021).
\36\ Certified equipment in the CCD are listed by product class
and can be accessed at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed July 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CWAFs when determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-
date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE
test procedure, and to provide additional detail for the test setup for
models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having space
limitations. DOE proposes to update appendix A (formerly 10 CFR
431.76), ``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency
of commercial warm air furnaces'' as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006)
for testing oil-fired CWAFs;
(2) Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-
2000) for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI
Z21.47-2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs;
(4) Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/
ASHRAE 103-2007) for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(5) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-
2018 (i.e., NFPA 97-2003), AHRI 1500-2015 (i.e., ASTM D396-14a, ASTM
D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10), and ANSI Z21.47-2021
(i.e., ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004)) that are necessary in
performing the DOE test procedure;
(6) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units
with vent hoods that are 2 inches in diameter or smaller; and
DOE also proposes to establish a new test procedure and metric for
``TE2'' in a new appendix B to 10 CFR 431.72, which manufacturers could
use to make voluntary representations, and which would be mandatory
only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy
conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
The proposed new TE2 metric accounts for flue losses in a manner
identical to the existing TE metric, and accounts for jacket losses and
part-load operation.
Items (1) through (5) incorporate by reference the most up-to-date
versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE test
procedure. Item (6) includes clarifications intended to improve
consistency and reproducibility of test procedure results. The industry
test procedure ANSI Z21.47 does not specify how to test units with
multiple vent hoods or units with vent hoods that are too small to fit
the required number of thermocouples. DOE is proposing to add
clarifications and guidance to address these scenarios. DOE has
tentatively determined that these proposed amendments in this NOPR
would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of
the test results and would not increase third-party laboratory testing
costs.
In item (7), DOE proposes to adopt appendix B, which includes the
relevant test procedure requirements for measuring TE2, an efficiency
metric proposed by DOE which incorporates jacket loss and CWAF
performance at reduced firing rates. The proposed NOPR amendments would
not require
[[Page 10744]]
manufacturers to re-rate models, as DOE energy conservation standards
do not currently require TE2 ratings. As such, the test procedure
amendments do not result in industry costs.
Should DOE adopt energy conservation standards based on the TE2
metric in proposed appendix B in the future, DOE anticipates
manufacturers would incur costs to re-rate models as result of the
standards. DOE expects the proposed test procedure in appendix B for
measuring TE2 would increase testing costs compared to the current DOE
test procedure. The current DOE test procedure costs approximately
$4,200 per unit for third-party laboratory testing. DOE estimates the
cost for third-party laboratory testing according to the proposed
appendix B to be $6,400 per unit.
If CWAF manufacturers conduct testing to certify a basic model, two
units are required to be tested per basic model. The test cost,
according to the proposed amendments, would be $12,800 per basic
model.\37\ However, manufacturers are not required to perform
laboratory testing on all basic models, as CWAF manufacturers may elect
to use AEDMs.\38\ An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical tool
that predicts the performance of non-tested basic models. These
computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly developed, can
provide a means to predict the energy usage or efficiency
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or
equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. DOE
estimates the cost to develop and validate an AEDM for CWAFs to be
$17,300, which includes testing of two models per validation class.
Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of approximately $46 per basic model
for determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The cost to test one unit is $6,400. The cost to test two
units is $12,800.
\38\ In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates the range of potential costs for the one domestic,
small OEM. When developing cost estimates for the small OEM, DOE
considers the cost to develop the AEDM simulation tool, the costs to
validate the AEDM through testing, and the cost to rate basic models
using the AEDM.
DOE research indicates that the one small manufacturer has average
annual revenues of $3.3 million. DOE understands this OEM to
manufacture four basic models. Therefore, DOE estimates that the
associated re-rating costs for this manufacturer to be approximately
$17,400 when making use of AEDMs. The cost for this small manufacturer
to re-rate all basic models is estimated to be less than 1 percent of
annual revenue.
DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE identified.
DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small manufacturer
may incur.
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small
businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic
models. The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CWAF
models. Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost to physically test all
CWAF basic models for the identified small manufacturer to be
approximately $51,200.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CWAFs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including CWAFs. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for CWAFs. DOE has determined that this rule
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed
[[Page 10745]]
rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 4316(b);
42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of CWAFs is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-
[[Page 10746]]
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; ``FEAA'')
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards
on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CWAF would
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: UL 727-2018, AHRI 1500-2015 ANSI
Z21.47-2021, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following standards:
(1) UL 727-2018. This test standard provides instruction for how to
test oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW. Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-
5500 or online at: standardscatalog.ul.com.
(2) ANSI Z21.47-2021. This test standard provides instruction for
how to test gas-fired CWAFs.
(3) ASHRAE 103-2017. This test standard provides instruction for
how to test residential furnaces and boilers, which DOE is referencing
for the purpose of providing instruction for testing condensing gas-
fired CWAFs.
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004). This standard is also
referenced as ANSI Z21.47-2021, and it specifies thermocouple
requirements for when testing gas-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 and ANSI/ASME PTC
19.3-1974 (R2004), can be obtained from 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor,
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at: webstore.ansi.org.
(5) AHRI 1500-2015. This test standard provides instruction for how
to test perform fuel oil analysis and for how to calculate flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from 2111 Wilson Blvd.,
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
ahrinet.org.
(6) NFPA 97-2003. This standard is referenced in UL 727-2018, and
it provides definitions for the terms combustible and noncombustible.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained form 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169-7471, (617) 770-3000 or by going online at:
www.nfpa.org.
(7) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17. This standard is referenced in UL 727-
2018, and it specifies thermocouple requirements for when testing oil-
fired CWAFs.
(8) ASTM D396-14a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains general fuel oil requirements.
(9) ASTM D240-09. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil heating value requirements.
(10) ASTM D4809-09a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil hydrogen and carbon content requirements.
(11) ASTM D5291-10. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil density requirements.
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, can be obtained from 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by
going online at: www.astm.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. If no participants register
for the webinar, it will be cancelled. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=49&action=viewlive Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow
[[Page 10747]]
time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general
statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion
of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Participation in the Webinar
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is
an outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE
seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003
in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
(2) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method
specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO2
using a measured O2 value. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal to establishestablish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update
of 10 CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to accommodate
the option to calculate CO2 using a measured O2
value.
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section
5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three
burner characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or
burden of the thermal efficiency test.
(4) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test
procedure (i.e., appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which
would generally adopt the same changes proposed for the current test
procedure at appendix A and account for flue losses in the same manner
as the current
[[Page 10748]]
TE metric, but would additionally account for jacket losses and part
load operation.
(5) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be
measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor installation and
designed for indoor installation within an unheated space when
determining TE2 pursuant to newly proposed appendix B, and on its
proposed method for measuring jacket loss. DOE also seeks comment on
its proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs intended for indoor
installation within a heated space would be assumed to be zero, and on
its proposed jacket loss factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space.
(6) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test
procedure to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE
also seeks comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging
performance at the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any
related data. DOE also requests comment on alternate weighting values,
including those discussed, that may be more nationally representative
of an average use, along with any relevant data.
(7) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in
the DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
(8) DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
size of the vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks comment on its proposal
to compare vent hood outlet face areas to determine vent hood size.
(9) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
five thermocouples may optionally be used.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation
method specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when
determining flue loss, and not the nomograph method.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the
test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to
DOE's estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the
testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as
compared to the current test procedure.
(12) DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE
identified. DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small
manufacturer may incur.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
11, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, 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 February 14, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
10 CFR part 431 as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.72 by adding, in alphabetical order, a definition
for ``Thermal efficiency two'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.72 Definitions concerning commercial warm air furnaces.
* * * * *
Thermal efficiency two for a commercial warm air furnace equals 100
percent minus percent flue loss and jacket loss.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 431.75 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.75 Materials incorporated by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at DOE, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at the
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, [email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. It may be obtained from the following sources:
(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 (``AHRI 1500-2015''), ``Performance Rating
of Commercial Space Heating Boilers'', approved November 28, 2014; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212) 642-4900 or go to www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.47-2021,``Gas-fired Central Furnaces'', approved April
21, 2021; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, Georgia
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (``ASHRAE 103-2017''), ``Method
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers'', approved June 30, 2017; IBR approved
for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
[[Page 10749]]
(d) ASME. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Service Center,
22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007, (973) 882-1170, or go
to www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) (``ASME PTC 19.3-1974
(R2004)''), ``Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus'', published January 1, 2004; IBR approved for appendices A
and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786, or go to www.astm.org/.
(1) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 (``ASTM E230/E230M-17''), ``Standard
Specification for Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for
Standardized Thermocouples'', approved November 1, 2017, IBR approved
for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) ASTM D240-09, ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'', approved July 1, 2009;
IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(3) ASTM D396-14a, ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils,''
approved on October 1, 2014; IBR approved for appendices A and B to
this subpart.
(4) ASTM D4809-09a, ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)'';
IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(5) ASTM D5291-10, ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants'', approved on May 1, 2010; IBR approved for appendices
A and B to this subpart.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 11 Tracy Drive,
Avon, MA 02322, 1-800-344-3555, or go to www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 97-2003, ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to
Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances''; IBR approved for
appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or go to: www.ul.com.
(1) UL 727 (``UL 727-2018''), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired
Central Furnaces'', Tenth Edition, published January 31, 2018; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
0
4. Revise Sec. 431.76 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.76 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.
(a) Scope. This section prescribes the test requirements used to
measure the energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces with a
rated maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.
(b) Testing and calculations. (1) Thermal efficiency. Test in
accordance with appendix A to subpart D of this part when making
representations of thermal efficiency.
(2) Thermal efficiency two. Test in accordance with appendix B to
subpart D of this part when making representations of thermal
efficiency two.
0
5. Add appendix A to subpart D of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency)
Note: On and after [date 360 days following publication of a
final rule], any representations made with respect to the energy use
or efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces must be made in
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this section. At
that time, manufacturers must use the relevant procedures specified
in this appendix, which reference ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017,
UL 727-2018, or AHRI 1500-2015. On and after [effective date 30 days
following publication of a final rule] and prior to [date 360 days
following publication of a final rule], manufacturers must test
commercial warm air furnaces in accordance with this appendix or 10
CFR 431.76 (revised as of January 1, 2020). DOE notes that, because
testing under this section is required as of [date 360 days
following publication of a final rule], manufacturers may wish to
begin using this amended test procedure immediately. Any
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of
such commercial warm air furnaces must be made in accordance with
whichever version is selected.
1. Incorporation by reference. DOE incorporates by reference in
Sec. 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-
2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-
17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA
97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021,
ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the
enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47-2021
1.1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and
7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of this
appendix;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of this
appendix; 1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of this
appendix;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103-2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 3.2 of this appendix;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1
of this appendix.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 5.1 of this appendix.
1.3 UL 727-2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44,
45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of
this appendix.
1.4 AHRI 1500-2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section
2.2 of this appendix; 1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of
the AHRI 1500-2015of section 4.2 of this appendix.
2. Test set-up and Testing. Where this section prescribes use of
ANSI Z21.47-2021 or UL 727-2018, perform only the procedures
pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency, as
specified in this section.
2.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test set-up,
including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurements for determining thermal efficiency are as specified in
section 2.3 of this appendix, and the following sections of ANSI
Z21.47-2021: 5.1 (General, including ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) as
referenced in Section 5.1.4), 5.2 (Basic test arrangements), 5.3
(Test ducts and plenums), 5.4 (Test gases), 5.5 (Test pressures and
burner adjustments), 5.6 (Static pressure and air flow adjustments),
5.40 (Thermal efficiency), and 7.2.1 (Basic test arrangements for
direct vent central furnaces). If section 2.3 of this appendix and
ANSI Z21.47-2021 have conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when testing units with vent hoods
two inches in diameters or smaller), follow the provisions in
section 2.3. The thermal efficiency test must be conducted only at
the normal inlet test pressure, as specified in Section 5.5.1 of
ANSI Z21.47-2021, and at the maximum hourly Btu input rating
specified by the manufacturer for the product being tested.
2.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test setup,
including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurement for measuring thermal efficiency is as specified in
section 2.3 of this appendix and the following sections of UL 727-
2018: 2 (Units of Measurement), 3 (Glossary, except that the
definitions for combustible and non-combustible in Sections 3.11 and
3.27 shall be as referenced in NFPA 97-2003), 37 (General), 38 and
39 (Test Installation), 40 (Instrumentation, except 40.4 and 40.6.2
through 40.6.7 which are not required for the thermal efficiency
test, and including ASTM E230/E230M-17 as referenced in Sections
40.6), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test--Burner and
Furnace), 43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control
[[Page 10750]]
Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 46 (Air Flow,
Downflow or Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 2.3 of this
appendix and UL 727 have conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when testing units with vent hoods
two inches in diameters or smaller), follow the provisions in
section 2.3 of this appendix. Conduct a fuel oil analysis for
heating value, hydrogen content, carbon content, pounds per gallon,
and American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity as specified in
Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015, including the applicable
provisions of ASTM D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, and ASTM
D396-14a, as referenced. The steady-state combustion conditions,
specified in Section 42.1 of UL 727-2018, are attained when
variations of not more than 5 [deg]F in the measured flue gas
temperature occur for three consecutive readings taken 15 minutes
apart.
2.3 Additional test set up requirements for gas-fired and oil-
fired commercial warm air furnaces
2.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas and oil-fired commercial warm
air furnaces with flue vents that are two inches in diameter or
smaller. For units with vent hoods (i.e., flue outlet hoods) two
inches in diameter or smaller, the flue gas temperatures may
optionally be measured using five individual thermocouples, instead
of nine thermocouples.
2.3.2 Procedure for flue gas measurements when testing units
with multiple vent hoods. For units that have multiple vent hoods
record flue gas measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature,
CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each individual
vent hood and calculate a weighted-average value based on the
readings of all vent hoods. To determine the weighted average for
each measurement, first calculate the face area of each vent hood.
Then multiply the ratio of each individual vent hood's face area to
the total face area of all vent hoods (i.e., the face area of each
individual vent hood divided by the total vent hood area) by that
vent hood's respective component measurement and the sum of all of
the products for all of the vent hoods to determine the weighted-
average values. Use the weighted-average values to determine flue
loss, and whether equilibrium conditions are met before the official
test period.
3. Additional test measurements
3.1 Determination of flue CO2 (carbon dioxide) or
O2 (oxygen) for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces.
In addition to the flue temperature measurement specified in Section
40.6.8 of UL 727-2018, locate one or two sampling tubes within six
inches downstream from the flue temperature probe (as indicated on
Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018). If an open end tube is used, it must
project into the flue one-third of the chimney connector diameter.
If other methods of sampling the flue gas are used place the
sampling tube so as to obtain an average sample. There must be no
air leak between the temperature probe and the sampling tube
location. Collect the flue gas sample at the same time the flue gas
temperature is recorded. The CO2 or O2
concentration of the flue gas must be as specified by the
manufacturer for the product being tested, with a tolerance of
0.1 percent. Determine the flue CO2 or
O2 using an instrument with a reading error no greater
than 0.1 percent.
3.2 Procedure for the measurement of condensate for a gas-fired
condensing commercial warm air furnace. The test procedure for the
measurement of the condensate from the flue gas under steady-state
operation must be conducted as specified in Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8,
and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 under the maximum rated input conditions.
This condensate measurement must be conducted for an additional 30
minutes of steady-state operation after completion of the steady-
state thermal efficiency test specified in Section 2.1 of this
appendix.
4. Calculation of thermal efficiency
4.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Use the calculation
procedure specified in Section 5.40, Thermal efficiency, of ANSI
Z21.47-2021. When determining the flue loss that is used in the
calculation of thermal efficiency, the calculation method specified
in Annex I shall be used.
4.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Calculate the
percent flue loss (in percent of heat input rate) by following the
procedure specified in Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the
AHRI 1500-2015. The thermal efficiency must be calculated as:
Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent - flue loss (in percent).
5. Procedure for the calculation of the additional heat gain and
heat loss, and adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a
condensing commercial warm air furnace.
5.1 Calculate the latent heat gain from the condensation of the
water vapor in the flue gas, and calculate heat loss due to the flue
condensate down the drain, as specified in Sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017, with the exception that in the equation
for the heat loss due to hot condensate flowing down the drain in
Section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor temperature of 70 [deg]F and
the temperature term TOA must be replaced by the measured room
temperature as specified in Section 5.2.8 of ANSI Z21.47-2021.
5.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency for condensing
furnaces. Adjust the thermal efficiency as calculated in section 4.1
of this appendix by adding the latent gain, expressed in percent,
from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and
subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue condensate down the
drain), also expressed in percent, both as calculated in section 5.1
of this appendix, to obtain the thermal efficiency of a condensing
furnace.
0
6. Add appendix B to subpart D of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431-Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency Two)
Note: Representations with respect to energy use or efficiency
of this equipment, including compliance certifications, must be made
in terms of thermal efficiency (TE), as determined by the test
procedure specified in appendix A to this subpart. In addition,
manufacturers may optionally make representations of energy use or
efficiency of this equipment using thermal efficiency 2 (TE2) as
determined using this appendix [on or after effective date 30 days
after publication of final rule].
1. Incorporation by Reference. DOE incorporates by reference in
Sec. 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-
2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-
17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA
97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021,
ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the
enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47-2021
1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and
7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of appendix A
to this subpart;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of
appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to
this subpart;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4 of appendix A to this
subpart;
1.1.5 Annex J as specified in sections 2.2 and 2.6 of this
appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103-2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 3.2 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1
of appendix A to this subpart.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.3 UL 727-2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44,
45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of appendix A
to this subpart;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of
appendix A to this subpart.
1.4 AHRI 1500-2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section
2.2 to appendix A of this subpart;
1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500-
2015 of section 4.2 of appendix A to this subpart.
2. Testing
2.1 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of
appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the maximum
nameplate input rate (i.e., full load). Calculate thermal efficiency
TE using the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A
to this subpart.
2.2 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or
indoor installation
[[Page 10751]]
within an unheated space (i.e., isolated combustion systems),
determine the jacket loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 while the unit is operating at the maximum nameplate
input.
2.3 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For
commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor
installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 1.7. For all
other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air
furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but
not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for
resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss
determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.3 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to
determine the full load efficiency.
2.5 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of
appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the
nameplate minimum input rate (i.e., part load). Calculate TE using
the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A to this
subpart.
2.6 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or
indoor installation within an unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion systems), determine the jacket loss using Section 5.40
and Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2021 while the unit is operating at the
minimum nameplate input. Alternatively, the jacket loss determined
in section 2.2 of this appendix at the maximum nameplate input may
be used.
2.7 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For
commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor
installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 1.7. For all
other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air
furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but
not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for
resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss
determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.7 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 2.5 of this appendix to
determine the part load efficiency.
2.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of the full-load and
part-load.
[FR Doc. 2022-03484 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
