Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces, 36217-36236 [2023-11341]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36217
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 88, No. 106
Friday, June 2, 2023
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
Rural Utilities Service
7 CFR Part 1735
1. The authority citation for part 1735
continues to read as follows:
■
[Docket No. RUS–20–TELECOM–0044]
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq., 1921 et
seq., and 6941 et seq.
RIN 0572–AA48
Rural Utilities Service,
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
AGENCY:
Correcting amendment.
On September 10, 2021, Rural
Development’s Rural Utilities Service
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the Agency’’)
published a document that completed
modifications to existing program
regulations to implement statutory
provisions of the Agriculture
Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm
Bill). Following the final
implementation of the final rule, the
Agency found that an amendment was
necessary to clarify the meaning of a
sentence. This document clarifies the
final rule.
SUMMARY:
For
information specific to this document
contact Laurel Leverrier, Assistant
Administrator Telecommunications
Program, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA),
email: laurel.leverrier@usda.gov,
telephone: (202) 720–9556.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The Rural
Utilities Service is issuing a correcting
amendment to provide clarification to
the final rule that published September
10, 2021, at 86 FR 50604. In that rule,
the wording of § 1735.23(a) was not
clear. This clarifying amendment
provides for clear information for
readers.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 1735.23
Public notice.
(a) For applications which request
funding in which the applicant will
provide retail broadband service, the
Agency’s mapping tool will include the
following information from each
application, and be displayed for the
public:
*
*
*
*
*
Andrew Berke,
Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2023–11724 Filed 6–1–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041]
Effective June 2, 2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
2. Amend § 1735.23 by revising the
introductory text of paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
■
Implementation of
Telecommunications Provisions of the
Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018;
Correction
DATES:
Loan programs—communications,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Rural areas, Telephone.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Rural Utilities Service
corrects 7 CFR part 1735 by making the
following correcting amendment:
PART 1735—GENERAL POLICIES,
TYPES OF LOANS, LOAN
REQUIREMENTS—
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
ACTION:
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1735
RIN 1904–AE57
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedure for Commercial Warm Air
Furnaces
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is amending the Federal
test procedures for commercial warm air
furnaces (CWAFs) to incorporate the
latest versions of the industry test
standards that are currently
incorporated by reference. DOE is also
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
establishing a new metric, Thermal
Efficiency Two (TE2), and
corresponding test procedure. Use of the
newly established 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 is adopting
additional specifications for CWAFs
with multiple flue outlets or small flue
outlets.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is
July 3, 2023. These amendments will be
mandatory for CWAF equipment testing
starting May 28, 2024. The
incorporation by reference of certain
material listed in this rule is approved
by the Director of the Federal Register
on July 3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov under
docket number EERE–2019–BT–TP–
0041. All documents in the docket are
listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be
found at: www.regulations.gov/docket/
EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. The docket
web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
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) 597–
6737. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
36218
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
DOE incorporates by reference the
following industry standards into part
431:
ANSI/AHRI 1500–2015 Performance
Rating of Commercial Space Heating
Boilers (‘‘AHRI 1500–2015’’);
Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be
obtained from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or
online at: www.ahrinet.org.
CSA/ANSI Z21.47:21, Gas-fired
central furnaces (‘‘ANSI Z21.47–2021’’);
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004),
Supplement to ASME Performance Test
Codes: Part 3: Temperature
Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus;
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022, Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers (‘‘ASHRAE 103–
2022’’);
Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004) and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022, can be
obtained from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212) 642–4900, or online at:
www.webstore.ansi.org.
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;
ASTM E230/E230M–17, Standard
Specification for TemperatureElectromotive Force (emf) Tables for
Standardized Thermocouples (‘‘ASTM
E230/E230M–17’’);
Copies of ASTM D240–09, ASTM
D396–14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM
D5291–10, and ASTM E230/E230M–17
can be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428, (877) 909–2786 or online at:
www.astm.org.
NFPA 97–2003, Standard Glossary of
Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and
Heat-Producing Appliances.
Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be
obtained from the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169–
7471, (1–800–344–3555) or online at:
www.nfpa.org.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
UL 727, Standard for Safety Oil-Fired
Central Furnaces (‘‘UL 727–2018’’);
Copies of UL 727–2018 can be
obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten
Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272–
8800 or online at:
www.standardscatalog.ul.com.
For a further discussion of these
standards, see section IV.N of this
document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. UL 727
2. HI BTS and AHRI 1500
3. ANSI Z21.47
4. 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 Flue Outlets
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Vent Space Limitations
3. Flue Loss Determination
4. General Approach
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
G. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866,
13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by
Reference
V. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Regulations (CFR). The following
sections discuss DOE’s authority to
establish and amend 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 among other
things, authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, Public
Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified) 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.
This covered equipment includes
CWAFs, the subject of this final rule. (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), energy conservation standards
(42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), 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 other 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C.
6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
of Federal preemption in limited
circumstances for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions of
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets
forth the criteria and procedures DOE
must follow when prescribing or
amending test procedures for covered
equipment. Specifically, 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 (or class thereof) 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 or rating
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, ‘‘Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings’’ (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 seven 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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
energy use, and estimated operating
costs during a representative average
use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)–(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a
test procedure amendment is warranted,
the Department 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 in the Federal
Register its determination not to amend
the test procedures. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) As discussed further in
section I.B of this document, in January
2023, ASHRAE released the latest
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022), which
updated the referenced industry
standards for testing CWAFs to reflect
the most recent versions of those
standards that are currently available,
thereby triggering DOE’s rulemaking
obligations under EPCA. DOE is
publishing this final rule amending the
test procedure for CWAFs in satisfaction
of both the ‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’
requirement under 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B) and the 7-year-lookback
review requirement specified in EPCA
under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1).
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 Gasfired Central Furnaces’’ (ANSI Z21.47–
2012), which is used for all types of gasfired 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36219
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) standard
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 in the Federal Register 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.
Under EPCA’s seven-year-lookback
provision, DOE initiated a test
procedure rulemaking for CWAFs by
publishing a request for information
(RFI) in the Federal Register on May 5,
2020 (May 2020 RFI). 85 FR 26626. The
May 2020 RFI solicited 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. Id.
DOE published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) for the CWAFs test
procedure in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2022 that presented DOE’s
proposals to amend that test procedure.
87 FR 10726 (February 2022 NOPR).
DOE held a webinar public meeting
related to this NOPR on March 29, 2022.
DOE received comments in response to
the February 2022 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
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 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 (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.
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36220
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR ORAL COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY
2022 NOPR
Commenter(s)
Abbreviation used in this Final
Rule
Commenter type
AAON Inc ................................................................................................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute .............................
American Gas Association and American Public Gas Association ........
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, and Natural Resources Defense Council.
California Energy Commission ................................................................
Carrier Corporation ..................................................................................
Daikin Comfort Technologies Manufacturing ..........................................
Lennox International Inc ..........................................................................
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority .............
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .....................................................
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and
Southern California Edison (collectively, the ‘‘California InvestorOwned Utilities’’).
Rheem Manufacturing .............................................................................
AAON .............................................
AHRI ..............................................
AGA and APGA .............................
Joint Advocates .............................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer Trade Association.
Utility Trade Association.
Efficiency Advocacy Organization.
CEC ...............................................
Carrier ............................................
Daikin .............................................
Lennox ...........................................
NYSERDA .....................................
NEEA .............................................
CA IOUs ........................................
Efficiency Advocacy Organization.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
State Agency.
Efficiency Advocacy Organization.
Utilities.
Rheem ...........................................
Manufacturer.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.5 To the extent that
interested parties have provided written
comments that are substantively similar
to any oral comments provided during
the March 29, 2022 NOPR webinar
public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule.
For the party that provided substantive
oral comments at the March 29, 2022
NOPR webinar public meeting but did
not submit written comments, DOE cites
the public meeting transcript.
Since publication of the February
2022 NOPR, DOE would note the
following additional developments
which are relevant to this rulemaking
proceeding. As discussed, EPCA
requires DOE to use industry test
procedures developed or recognized by
AHRI or ASHRAE as referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)–(B)) The latest update to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was released in
January 2023 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2022). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022
references ANSI Z21.47–2021 as the test
method for gas-fired CWAFs and UL
727–2018 as the test method for oil-fired
CWAFs. This action by ASHRAE
triggered DOE’s rulemaking obligations
under EPCA. As noted previously, in
such cases, EPCA requires DOE to
amend the Federal test procedure to be
consistent with these amended industry
test procedures, unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that to do so
would not meeting the statutory
requirements related to
representativeness and not being unduly
burdensome. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
Furthermore, EPCA also requires that, at
least once every seven years, DOE
evaluate test procedures for each class
of covered equipment, including those
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)) This
rulemaking satisfies both of these
statutory obligations.
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is amending 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
(TE) 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;
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• ANSI Z21.47–2021 (previously
ANSI Z21.47–2012) for testing gas-fired
CWAFs; and
• ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022
(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 and ANSI/ASTM
E230/230M–17), 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 flue outlets, and units with
flue outlets having a cross-sectional area
of 3.14 square inches or less; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at
10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B
(appendix B), which generally requires
testing as in appendix A, but which
establishes a new metric, ‘‘TE2.’’ The
new TE2 metric accounts for jacket
losses and part-load operation in
addition to accounting for flue losses.
Manufacturers can use appendix B to
make voluntary representations of TE2;
representations using this test procedure
are not mandatory until such time as
compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on
TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
The amendments adopted in this final
rule are summarized in Table II.1
compared to the test procedure prior to
amendment, as well as the reason for
the change.
comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36221
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE AMENDED TEST PROCEDURE
DOE test procedure prior to
amendment
Amended test procedures
Applicable test procedure
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Referenced UL 727–2006
Incorporate by reference UL 727–2018 for testing oilfor testing oil-fired CWAFs.
fired CWAFs, and the standards referenced in UL
727–2018 that are necessary in performing the DOE
test procedure (i.e., NFPA 97–2003 and ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M–17).
Referenced HI BTS–2000
Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–2015 for perfor performing fuel oil
forming fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss
analysis and for calcuof oil-fired CWAFs and the standards referenced in
lating flue loss of oil-fired
AHRI 1500–2015 that are necessary in performing
CWAFs.
the DOE test procedure (i.e., ASTM D396–14a,
ASTM D240–09, ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM
D5291–10).
Referenced ANSI Z21.47–
Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–2021 for test2012 for testing gas-fired
ing gas-fired CWAFs, and the standards referenced
CWAFs.
in ANSI Z21.47–2021 that are necessary in performing the DOE test procedure (i.e., ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)).
Referenced ANSI/ASHRAE
Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022 for
103–2007 for testing contesting condensing gas-fired CWAFs.
densing gas-fired CWAFs.
Did not specify how to test
Adds specifications for units with multiple flue outlets.
units with multiple flue
Measurements made in each flue outlet shall be
outlets.
averaged or adjusted using a weighted average, depending on the input capacity of the furnace module
associated with each flue outlet.
Did not specify how to test
Adds specifications to address units with small flue
units with flue outlets that
outlets. Units with flue outlets that are 3.14 inches
are too small to fit nine
or smaller in cross-sectional area may optionally
thermocouples.
use 5 thermocouples.
Efficiency metric (TE) only
Establishes a new metric (TE2) that accounts for flue
accounted for flue losses
losses, jacket losses, and part-load operation.
and does not account for
jacket losses or part-load
operation.
DOE has determined that the adopted
amendments for the test procedure at
appendix A described in section III of
this document will not alter the
measured TE of CWAFs, that the test
procedures are not unduly burdensome
to conduct, and that the 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.
DOE has determined that the
additional amendments for appendix B,
which adopt TE2 as a new efficiency
metric for CWAFs, do alter the reported
efficiency of CWAFs. However, testing
in accordance with the TE2 test
procedure is not required until such
time as compliance is required with any
amended energy conservation standards
based on appendix B. Prior to such date,
voluntary representations of TE2 may be
made, but they must be based upon use
of the test procedure in appendix B.
The amendments adopted in this final
rule are discussed in detail in section III
of this document.
The effective date for the amended
test procedures adopted in this final
rule is 30 days after publication of this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
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.
appendix A and appendix
B.
Additional specification to
improve consistency and
repeatability in testing.
appendix A and appendix
B.
Additional specification to
improve consistency and
repeatability in testing.
appendix B ........................
Improve representativeness.
document in the Federal Register.
Representations of energy use or energy
efficiency must be based on testing in
accordance with the amended test
procedures beginning 360 days after the
date of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE
describes the adopted amendments to
the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE
also discusses issues raised by
commenters on the February 2022
NOPR, along with DOE’s responses.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Attribution
input) of 225,000 British thermal units
(Btu) per hour or more. 10 CFR 431.72.
In response to the February 2022
NOPR, NEEA recommended that DOE
expand the scope of CWAF coverage to
include 3-phase units with a capacity
less than 225,000 Btu/h. NEEA asserted
that failing to do so would leave a
significant portion of the CWAF market
unregulated, and the commenter noted
that DOE has recently proposed closing
a similar regulatory gap for 3-phase
small commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps and variable refrigerant
flow air conditioners and heat pumps
with cooling capacities less than 65,000
btu/h. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 8)
In response, DOE notes that NEEA
made the same recommendation in a
comment submitted in response to a
notice of proposed determination
(‘‘NOPD’’) for CWAF energy
conservation standards that was
published in the Federal Register on
April 26, 2022 (April 2022 NOPD). 87
FR 24455 (See Docket No. EERE–2019–
BT–STD–0042, comment 34 at p. 6)
Subsequently, in a final determination
published in the Federal Register on
December 23, 2022 (December 2022
Final Determination), DOE declined to
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
36222
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
amend the CWAF definition to include
three-phase furnaces with capacities
less than 225,000 Btu/h due to the
limited potential to achieve energy
savings from doing so. 87 FR 78821,
78826. DOE maintains its position from
the December 2022 Final Determination
that such equipment represents a small
portion of the overall CWAF market,
which at present does not provide an
opportunity for significant energy
savings.
appendix B for determining the TE2. In
contrast, the establishment of appendix
A is editorial and for reorganization
purposes. DOE has determined that
creating separate appendixes for the
determination of the two different
metrics would help clarify which
appendix corresponds to which metric.
Relevant to both appendices, DOE is
incorporating by reference the industry
standards, as discussed in the following
sections.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, prior to the
amendments adopted in this final rule,
DOE incorporated 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.
Updated versions of each of these test
standards have been published since
they were incorporated into the DOE
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
(update to ANSI Z21.47–2016), and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–2022 6
(update to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
103–2007).
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
noted several differences between
versions of the industry standards
incorporated by reference at that time
and the more recent versions of the
industry standards and sought comment
on these changes. 87 FR 10726, 10730–
10735 (Feb. 25, 2022). Stakeholder
comments in response these proposals
in the February 2022 NOPR are
discussed in the following sections. In
response to the updates to the relevant
industry standards, DOE is amending
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 103–2022.
As discussed, prior to the effective
date of the amendments adopted in this
final rule, the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs was specified in 10 CFR 431.76.
In this final rule, DOE is reorganizing
the CWAF test procedures into two
appendixes to subpart D of 10 CFR part
431: appendix A (using the current TE
metric) and appendix B (using the new
TE2 metric). DOE is reorganizing the
test procedures in this way because, as
discussed in section III.C of this
document, DOE is establishing
1. UL 727
The CWAF test procedure, prior to the
amendments adopted in this final rule,
required 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 February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to amend the test procedure to
reference UL 727–2018. 87 FR 10726,
10731 (Feb. 25, 2022). Additionally,
DOE proposed to explicitly identify the
provisions of UL 727–2018 that are
applicable to the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs, because DOE tentatively
determined that the scope section of UL
727–2018 is not applicable since the
scope of the DOE test procedure is
defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a).
Id.
The February 2022 NOPR also
discussed that UL 727–2018 has
different language pertaining to
temperature measurements and using
potentiometers and thermocouples, and
it also incorporates different ANSI
references regarding these topics as
compared to UL 727–2006. DOE
tentatively determined that there was
not sufficient evidence to indicate that
the updates in UL 727–2018 would not
meet the requirements of EPCA at 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3); therefore, DOE
proposed to also incorporate by
reference the updated ANSI standard
(i.e., ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17)
referenced by UL 727–2018. 87 FR
10726, 10732 (Feb. 25, 2022).
Finally, in the February 2022 NOPR,
DOE discussed that UL 727–2018
references NFPA 97M, ‘‘Standard
Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys,
Gas Vents and Heat Producing
Appliances’’ (NFPA 97M) for definitions
of the terms ‘‘combustible’’ and
‘‘noncombustible’’ but does not specify
which version of NFPA 97M. DOE
tentatively concluded that NFPA 97M is
an outdated standard and that NFPA
97–2003, ‘‘Standard Glossary of Terms
Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and HeatProducing Appliances’’ (NFPA 97–2003)
6 The February 2022 TP NOPR proposed to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017;
however, in 2022, ASHRAE published a more
recent version of the standard, ANSI/ASHRAE 103–
2022.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
should be referenced for these
definitions instead. Therefore, DOE
proposed to replace references to NFPA
97M in UL 727–2018 with references to
NFPA 97–2003. Id.
DOE received comments from Daikin,
Carrier, and AHRI supporting the
proposal to reference NFPA 97–2003
rather than NFPA 97M. (Daikin, No. 25
at p. 1; Carrier, No. 22 at p. 2; AHRI, No.
17 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any
comments in response to the proposals
related to incorporating by reference UL
727–2018.
For the reasons summarized in this
document and discussed in the
February 2022 NOPR, DOE is amending
the DOE test procedure to incorporate
by reference UL 727–2018, as well as
incorporating the additional industry
standards related to UL 727–2018.
2. HI BTS and AHRI 1500
Prior to the amendments adopted in
this final rule, DOE’s test procedure for
oil-fired CWAFs referenced 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). (See 10
CFR 431.76(c)(2) and (e)(2) in effect as
of January 1, 2022.) DOE’s test
procedure included these provisions
because DOE 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 TE.
Therefore, DOE 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).
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
explained that in 2015, HI BTS–2000
was replaced with AHRI 1500–2015. 87
FR 10726, 10732 (Feb. 25, 2022). The
February 2022 NOPR also discussed that
the DOE test procedure references fuel
oil analysis requirements in HI BTS–
2000 and that the fuel oil analysis
requirements are different in AHRI
1500–2015. DOE tentatively determined
that the differences would not impact
the performance of a CWAF under test
because the fuel oil analysis
requirements in AHRI 1500–2015 are
essentially equivalent to those in HI
BTS–2000. As a result, DOE proposed to
incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–
2015, including its fuel oil analysis
specifications. 87 FR 10726, 10733 (Feb.
25, 2022).
In addition, in the February 2022
NOPR 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
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
oil must be the measured CO2,7 while
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. 87 FR 10726, 10733 (Feb. 25,
2022). DOE 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.
As such, DOE proposed to adopt the
optional method specified in AHRI
1500–2015 that allows for calculation
CO2 using a measured O2 value and
requested comment on this proposal. Id.
AHRI supported the proposal to adopt
the optional method specified in AHRI
1500–2015 that allows for calculation
CO2 using a measured O2 value. (AHRI,
No. 17 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any
other comments related to its proposal
to incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–
2015. Therefore, for the reasons
discussed here and in the February 2022
NOPR, DOE is adopting the proposals
related to this topic made in the
February 2022 NOPR.
3. ANSI Z21.47
Prior to the amendments adopted in
this final rule, the CWAF test procedure
required 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).
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to replace the incorporation
by reference of ANSI Z21.47–2012 with
ANSI Z21.47–2021. 87 FR 10726, 10734
(Feb. 25, 2022). DOE explained in the
February 2022 NOPR that all of the
differences it had identified between the
two versions of the standard were nonsubstantive and would not impact the
test method or result. Id. However, DOE
also noted that ANSI Z21.47–2012
requires burner operating characteristics
tests to be conducted with test gas G
(i.e., butane-air), while ANSI Z21.47–
2021 allows testing for premix burners
to be done with test gas H (i.e., propaneair) instead of test gas G at the
manufacturer’s option. In the February
2022 NOPR, DOE stated that the burner
operating characteristics tests (including
which test gas is used for them) do not
affect the TE measurement of a CWAF
and requested comment on whether the
7 The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76(d)
also states that CO2 must be measured.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
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. Id.
Lennox, Daikin, Carrier, and AHRI
stated that section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47–
2021 is used for safety certification
testing, and is unrelated to TE, and,
therefore, recommended DOE should
not reference this section. (Lennox, No.
19 at p. 3; Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2; Carrier,
No. 22 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17 at p. 2)
Rheem also stated that the thermal
efficiency test is not affected by the
burner operating characteristics test.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
15 at p. 11) DOE received no other
comments related to its proposal to
incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–
2021.
For the reasons discussed here and in
the February 2022 NOPR, DOE is
amending the test procedure for CWAFs
to replace the incorporation by reference
of ANSI Z21.47–2012 with ANSI
Z21.47–2021. In addition, DOE agrees
with stakeholders that section 5.4a of
ANSI Z21.47–2021 does not impact TE,
and, therefore, does not need to be
referenced in the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs. As such, DOE is not including
reference to this section in the DOE test
procedure.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
Prior to adoption of the amendments
in this final rule, DOE’s test procedure
for gas-fired condensing CWAFs
referenced ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007. In
the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed
to amend the test procedure by
removing the reference to ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2007 and to instead
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017,
having determined that the only
differences between the standards in the
sections utilized by the CWAF test
method were editorial in nature. 87 FR
10726, 10735. An updated version of
ANSI/ASHRAE 103, ANSI/ASHRAE
103–2022, has since been released. DOE
reviewed ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022 and
determined that, for the sections
utilized in the test methods for CWAFs,
there is no difference between the two
versions of the standard.
DOE did not receive any comments in
response to its proposal to reference
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017.
Accordingly, for the reasons
explained previously and because DOE
has found there is no difference between
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2022 in the sections
utilized for the CWAFs test procedure,
DOE is amending the test procedures for
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36223
CWAFs to incorporate by reference
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022.
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.8 (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
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. 87 FR 10726, 10735 (Feb. 25,
2022). Therefore, DOE proposed to
account for these factors by establishing
a new test procedure and metric for
CWAFs, termed TE2. DOE proposed to
establish appendix A to subpart D of 10
CFR part 431 as the test method for
calculating TE and to establish a new
appendix B to subpart D of 10 CFR part
431, which would contain the new test
method for TE2. The proposed test
procedure at appendix B 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. 87 FR 10726, 10735–10737
(Feb. 25, 2022). Additionally, DOE
proposed that manufacturers would be
permitted to make voluntary
representations using TE2, and that
mandatory use of the TE2 test procedure
8 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.
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
36224
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
would be required at such time as
compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on
TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
87 FR 10726, 10737.
DOE received several comments
supporting DOE’s proposed test
procedure for TE2 in the February 2022
NOPR. NYSERDA generally supported
DOE’s efforts to establish the TE2 metric
because it will improve
representativeness of CWAF field
performance. (NYSERDA, No. 16 at p. 2)
The Joint Advocates supported DOE’s
proposal to establish the TE2 metric,
noting that the current TE metric only
accounts for flue losses, which provides
little incentive to manufacturers to
adopt technologies that impact
efficiency in the field, and not just TE.
The Joint Advocates, therefore, stated
that the TE2 metric would better reflect
a representative average use cycle and
would encourage design changes that
would reduce energy consumption.
(Joint Advocates, No. 21 at p. 1)
DOE also received several comments
opposing the proposed test procedure
for TE2. Lennox stated that the
proposed new TE2 efficiency metric and
methodology is a significant change that
would significantly increase the test
burden, with the commenter asserting
that DOE has not provided supporting
data that would justify these changes.
Lennox argued that introducing such
changes at the NOPR stage did not allow
stakeholders sufficient time to fully
evaluate their impacts and provide
comment. Lennox noted that in
standards rulemakings, DOE has
declined to adopt or propose morestringent standards due to lack of clear
and convincing evidence that standards
would be economically justified, and
the commenter asserted that in their
review of current CWAF test procedure
and standards rulemakings, DOE has not
provided clear and convincing evidence
to establish the TE2 metric. Therefore,
Lennox recommended that DOE should
limit its test procedure amendments to
those related to TE; otherwise, if DOE
continues to pursue TE2, the commenter
argued that DOE should revert back to
the RFI stage so as to allow for more
stakeholder engagement regarding the
proposals in the TE2 metric. Lennox
also argued against adoption of the TE2
metric because of the associated
cumulative regulatory burden. (Lennox,
No. 19 at pp. 1–2) AHRI opposed
adoption of the TE2 test procedure and
metric because there was no reference to
such a proposal for a new metric or any
form of part-load testing in the May
2020 RFI and because DOE failed to
include key stakeholders in the
development of TE2. In addition, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
commenter stated that there is not
sufficient data or justification indicating
that such a change to the metric would
result in any additional energy savings.
AHRI stated that the proposal to adopt
the TE2 metric is premature, and that if
DOE wishes to do so, DOE should go
back to the RFI stage, conduct tests, and
release data showing the new test
procedure is significantly more
representative than the current test
procedure. AHRI also argued that the
proposed TE2 metric is not
economically justified, and that if DOE
were to adopt energy conservation
standards based on such a metric, a
crosswalk would run the risk of
inadvertently pushing compliant units
out of the market to produce a standard
that can only be met through use of
condensing technology. Therefore,
AHRI urged DOE to continue using the
current TE metric. (AHRI, No. 17 at pp.
2–3) Daikin agreed with AHRI on this
issue. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2) AGA and
APGA stated that while they are
supportive of AHRI’s comments overall,
they wish to reiterate that they do not
support DOE adopting the TE2 metric
because it is not clear that it is more
representative than the existing DOE
test procedure, and because there is no
evidence to support that the proposed
TE2 test procedure would result in a
significant change in energy savings.
AGA and APGA also expressed concern
that adopting energy conservation
standards based on the TE2 metric
would result in a standard that could
only be met through use of condensing
technology. (AGA and APGA, No. 23 at
p. 2) Carrier acknowledged that
including jacket loss and part load
operation in the thermal efficiency
metric would create a more
representative metric but asserted that
more investigation and analysis needs to
be completed before doing so. (Carrier,
No. 22 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes that the TE
metric only accounts for flue losses as
measured while the CWAF is operating
at its maximum input rate. Through
testing of other similar appliances (e.g.,
consumer furnaces), DOE has found that
the efficiency can vary when the unit
operates at different fuel input rates;
hence, test methods for such appliances
require testing at multiple fuel input
rates. Therefore, DOE concludes that
including more than one fuel input rate
will improve representativeness of
CWAF energy efficiency as compared to
only testing at the maximum input rate,
since it will capture performance at
additional operating points. Regarding
jacket losses, DOE has found that
CWAFs are often installed outside, and
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as a result, jacket losses can contribute
significantly to overall equipment
energy use. Thus, DOE concludes that
accounting for jacket losses results in a
metric that is more representative of
CWAF performance than a metric that
ignores such losses. Further, DOE notes
that the methods proposed for
determining TE2, which require testing
to determine jacket loss and TE, are
already in use in either industry
standards (e.g., ANSI Z21.47) or DOE’s
own test method for CWAFs. Therefore,
manufacturers should be familiar with
the methods of testing such that
reverting to an RFI would not be
necessary to provide time for additional
input. While DOE recognizes that
additional testing at the minimum input
rate and for jacket loss would increase
test burden, which is discussed in more
detail in section III.G, of this document,
DOE has concluded that the benefit of
the increased representativeness offsets
the additional test burden. Additionally,
DOE would make clear that
representations using the TE2 metric are
not mandatory until such time as
compliance with a standard
denominated in terms of the TE2 metric
is required, should DOE adopt such a
standard. In this rulemaking, DOE is not
amending standards to be based on TE2;
rather, DOE is making available an
optional test method, should
manufacturers wish to make
representations of efficiency using a
more comprehensive metric. If, in a
future energy conservation standards
rulemaking, DOE considers whether to
adopt an energy conservation standard
based on the TE2 metric, DOE would
further weigh the benefits and burdens
of doing so at that time, including the
potential additional energy savings that
could be achieved through use of TE2 as
the regulatory metric as compared to TE
and whether there is economic
justification for doing so. Based on these
considerations, DOE has determined to
adopt the proposals in the February
2022 NOPR regarding establishing TE2
and appendix B. The following sections
discuss the different components of TE2
(i.e., jacket loss and part-load operation)
and specific comments from interested
parties on those topics in more detail.
1. Jacket Loss
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to adopt section 5.40 of ANSI
Z21.47–2021 for the purpose of
measuring jacket loss for the TE2 metric.
87 FR 10726, 10737 (Feb. 25, 2022).
DOE also proposed to incorporate the
jacket loss into the TE2 metric by
subtracting it (along with flue losses)
from 100 percent after applying a jacket
loss factor to account for installation
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
location. DOE proposed to apply a
jacket loss factor of 1.7 for CWAFs
designed for indoor installation in an
unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion system), 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), or 0
for CWAFs designed for installation
indoors within a heated space, which is
consistent with the values found in
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017. Id. DOE
received multiple comments regarding
the proposed jacket loss test procedure
to be used in determining TE2.
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the CEC
generally supported DOE’s proposals to
include jacket loss in the TE2 metric.
(NEEA, No. 24, at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 20,
at p. 1; CEC, No. 18, at p. 2) The CA
IOUs and the CEC also specifically
noted that the jacket loss factors are
appropriate. (CA IOUs, No. 20, at p. 1;
CEC, No. 18, at p. 2)
Daikin, Carrier, and AHRI generally
opposed DOE’s proposal to include
jacket loss in the TE2 metric. (Daikin,
No. 25 at p. 2; Carrier No. 22 at pp. 2–
3; AHRI No. 17 at p. 3) More
specifically, Daikin stated that the
burden for conducting a jacket loss test
is excessive and is duplicative given
that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 already
requires a maximum jacket loss of 0.75
percent. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2) Carrier
also stated that the jacket loss test, in
particular the setup and data
acquisition, creates additional burden
on manufacturers, and that this
increases with the size of the unit being
tested. (Carrier No. 22 at pp. 2–3)
Additionally, Carrier stated that more
clarity is needed on how to properly run
the test, as the industry has several
methods to conduct it. (Id.) Carrier
stated that while other equipment
includes jacket loss in their calculation
of efficiency (e.g., residential furnaces
and AFUE), it is hard to scale this to
CWAFs. Carrier also noted that with
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 limiting jacket
loss to 0.75 percent, many large CWAFs
may be very close to this value.
Additionally, Carrier stated that
including the 3.3 factor for weatherized
equipment creates a sizeable impact to
the thermal efficiency, and that if a
future energy conservation standard for
TE2 is not set correctly, it would require
products to operate in a range that
condensing may occur. (Id.) AHRI stated
that jacket losses are measured on the
furnace jacket, not on the rooftop unit
(RTU) jacket,9 and that furnace jackets
are typically embedded far inside the
RTU, which requires the CUAC/HP to
be taken apart in order to reach the
CWAF jacket. AHRI stated that this is an
extremely burdensome task, and that
manufacturers are already required to
comply with ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
which requires jacket loss to be less
than 0.75 percent (although AHRI also
noted that only the worst-case models
are tested). AHRI also stated that the
additional granularity of a thermal
efficiency rating that incorporates jacket
loss would be negligible. (AHRI No. 17
at p. 3 and 5) Rheem stated that jacket
losses have to be below 1.5 percent for
equipment sold in Canada and below
0.75 percent for equipment to comply
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p.
24)
In response, DOE recognizes that
performing an additional test to
determine the jacket loss of a CWAF is
more burdensome than not testing for
jacket loss; however, as previously
discussed, DOE has concluded that
including jacket loss in the TE2 metric
will provide a more representative
measure of energy efficiency. DOE
disagrees with AHRI that jacket losses
would be negligible, as the percentage
loss is included directly in the TE2
calculation. As noted by Carrier, many
CWAFs may be close to the 0.75 percent
requirement. Because the jacket loss
percentage is multiplied by the jacket
loss factor, for weatherized CWAFs
designed to be installed outdoors
(which represent the majority of CWAFs
on the market and which have a jacket
loss factor of 3.3) a jacket loss of 0.75
percent could result in a difference in
TE2 of nearly 2.5 percent as compared
to a unit with negligible jacket losses,
which DOE considers significant.
Regarding Carrier’s concerns that
burden increases with the size of the
unit, DOE acknowledges that additional
testing burden would be incurred if
manufacturers decide to test according
to TE2, and may increase more
significantly for larger units. However,
DOE has concluded that this burden
would be outweighed by the anticipated
improvement in representativeness.
DOE also notes that CWAFs are eligible
to use alternative efficiency
determination methods (AEDMs,),
which are typically used by
manufacturers to mitigate burden,
especially for testing larger commercial
equipment. Further discussion of the
testing burden posed by TE2 is included
in section III.G. of this document.
9 RTUs are packaged units that can include both
a commercial unitary air conditioner (CUAC) and
a CWAF and are designed for installation on the
rooftop of commercial buildings.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36225
Although DOE recognizes that TE2
testing would be more burdensome as
compared to TE, DOE has concluded
that the TE2 test method is not unduly
burdensome. Further discussion of the
cost of testing is included in section
III.G of this document. Additionally,
DOE notes that the use of TE2 is
optional at this time, and this final rule
does not amend or otherwise impact the
energy conservation standards for
CWAFs. If DOE should propose
amended standards in the future
denominated in terms of the TE2 metric,
DOE would consider concerns regarding
condensing operation at that time.
Lastly, DOE agrees with Carrier that
additional clarity regarding how to
conduct the test is warranted. In
particular, DOE notes that section 5.40
of ANSI Z21.47–2021 is not specific as
to what constitutes the ‘‘jacket.’’
Therefore, DOE clarifies that it applies
the term as defined by the CSA Group
standard CSA P.8–2022, ‘‘Thermal
Efficiencies of Industrial and
Commercial Gas-Fired Package
Furnaces.’’ CSA P.8–2022 defines the
jacket as the surfaces surrounding the
heating section of the furnace. The
jacket includes all surfaces separating
the heating section from the supply air,
outside air, or condenser section,
including the bottom surface separating
the heating section from the basepan.
DOE has included a description of the
jacket in accordance with this definition
in section 1.2 of appendix B.
2. Part-Load Performance
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to require that, for CWAFs
with two-stage or modulating burners,
the flue loss be determined at both the
maximum and minimum input rates on
the nameplate of the unit and that the
jacket loss be determined at the
maximum input rate and optionally at
the minimum input rate. If the jacket
loss were determined only at the
maximum input rate, DOE proposed to
assign an equivalent value at the
minimum input rate. DOE proposed that
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, which
reflects an average use case of 50
percent of the time operating at full load
and 50 percent of the time operating at
part-load. 87 FR 10726, 10738 (Feb. 25,
2022).
In response to the February 2022
NOPR, AHRI stated that unlike for airconditioning equipment, the range in
variability in performance between partload and full-load is small and that
adding part-load performance into the
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
36226
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
measurement of CWAF performance
would not add to market clarity,
especially given the burden of retesting
all CWAFs on the market to assess
performance according to such a test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 17 at pp. 3–4)
DOE also received comments from
several stakeholders supporting the
inclusion of part-load performance in
TE2. Specifically, NEEA supported the
inclusion of part-load operation in the
proposed TE2 metric and noted that
they have observed cases where CWAFs
have had reduced efficiency at part-load
when compared to full-load. Therefore,
NEEA concluded that including partload efficiency in TE2 will create a more
representative efficiency metric. (NEEA,
No. 24 at p. 6) The CA IOUs supported
DOE’s efforts to incorporate part-load
operation within the TE2 metric and
agreed with DOEs assertion in the
February 2022 NOPR that most CWAFs
have two or more stages of heating, that
CWAFs spend a substantial time
operating in part-load, and that
including part-load performance in a
TE2 metric would increase
representativeness. (CA IOUs, No. 20 at
pp. 1–2) The CEC supported including
part-load performance in the TE2 metric
and noted that CWAFs spend a large
percentage of time in part-load
operation. (CEC, No. 18 at p. 2) Carrier
stated that part-load performance
should be part of the CWAF test
procedure. (Carrier, No. 22 at pp. 3–4)
As discussed previously, DOE has
observed during testing of similar
products that efficiency can differ at full
load as compared to part load and has
concluded that adding testing during
part-load operation would improve
representativeness as compared to a test
method that only requires operation at
the maximum input. Therefore, DOE is
adopting part-load testing in the TE2
metric, as initially proposed in the
February 2022 NOPR. Regarding the
need to re-test CWAFs currently rated to
the TE metric, DOE notes that testing to
determine TE2 would not be required
until the compliance date of any energy
conservation standards based on that
metric. However, DOE concludes that
the improved representativeness of the
TE2 metric would outweigh the
additional test burden.
DOE also received several comments
regarding the proposal to weight both
full-load and part-load operation at 50
percent when calculating TE2.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
continue to evaluate what full-load and
part-load weighting factors would
improve representativeness of an
average use cycle; however, the CA
IOUs stated that they do not oppose
DOE’s proposal to use 50 percent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:22 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
weighting factors, given the lack of
national data on such full-load and partload performance. (CA IOUs, No. 20 at
p. 2) The CEC supported the DOE’s
proposal to equally weight full-load and
part-load operation, but also stated that
DOE should continue to evaluate the
average use cycle of CWAFs. (CEC, No.
18 at p. 2)
NEEA recommended DOE reconsider
the proposed weighting of low and high
fire in the TE2 metric. NEEA presented
a figure showing the modeled
proportion of time at high fire and low
fire for three locations in Canada
(Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto) and
two building types (retail and
warehouse). The commenter stated that
modeling has shown that, in colder
North American climate zones (5A, 6A,
and 7), the ratio of high fire to low fire
is only close to 50/50 for warehouses in
these cold climates, but for other use
types, the ratio was closer to 30 percent
at low fire and 70 percent at high fire.
NEEA stated that because the U.S.
generally has warmer climate zones
than Canada, NEEA would expect
increased part-load operation in the
U.S., and, therefore, it argued that a 50/
50 weighting would not be
representative of CWAFs in the U.S.
(NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 6–7)
The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE
to further consider alternative weighting
factors for full-load and part-load
operation that they argue may be more
representative of average use. The Joint
Advocates also noted that the February
2022 NOPR refers to an estimate from
NEEA that CWAFs spend about 10 to 20
percent of their time operating at full
load, but that DOE did not use that
estimate because the Department
tentatively determined that the climate
regions from which the estimate was
derived were not representative of the
U.S. The Joint Advocates urged DOE to
reconsider the NEEA estimate because
they understand that while total
operating hours will vary significantly
based on climate region, the percentage
of time spent at full load is relatively
constant across climate regions. (Joint
Advocates, No. 21 at p. 2)
Rheem stated that it is not appropriate
to average the maximum and minimum
thermal efficiencies and noted that in
ANSI/ASHRAE 103 (i.e., the ASHRAE
test method for consumer furnaces)
there is a method for determining the
weightings, and the unit does not run at
the maximum input very often. Rheem
suggested that the minimum input rate
should be weighted more than the
maximum input rate. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at pp. 27–28)
Daikin also stated that 50 percent
weighting factors for full-load and part-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
load performance are not appropriate.
Further, Daikin stated that the approach
to weighting full-load and part-load
operation in ANSI/ASHRAE 103 cannot
be used for CWAFs because it was
generated for residential products and
the operational profile of commercial
products is radically different. (Daikin,
No. 25 at p. 2) Carrier commented that
time spent at part-load is much longer
than full-load, and, therefore, DOE’s
proposed 50 percent weighting factor is
not appropriate. Carrier recommended
that more investigation and analysis
should be performed to determine
appropriate weighting factors that
account for all types of furnaces (i.e.,
two-stage, multi-stage, and modulating).
(Carrier, No. 22 at pp. 3–4) AHRI also
stated that the 50 percent weighting
factors proposed by DOE in the
February 2022 NOPR are not
representative. (AHRI, No. 17 at p. 4)
In response, DOE notes that the
modeling presented by NEEA shows
that in the three regions in Canada, the
percentage of time a CWAF could
operate at high fire versus low fire
varied greatly, with CWAFs in some
applications operating as little as
approximately 25 percent of time in
high fire (and 75 percent in low fire),
while CWAFs in other applications
were modeled to operate more than 70
percent of time in high fire (and 30
percent in low fire). Warehouses in all
three locations were modeled to operate
in high fire over 50 percent of the time,
while retail buildings in all three
locations were modeled to operate in
high fire less than 50 percent of the
time. Although NEEA claimed that the
warmer climate in the U.S. would result
in less time operating at full load, that
is not necessarily the case as CWAFs in
the U.S. would likely be sized
differently from those in Canada due to
the reduced heating loads. As noted by
the Joint Advocates, while total
operating hours will vary significantly
based on climate region, the percentage
of time spent at full load could remain
relatively constant across climate
regions. Although several commenters
asserted that weighting equally at 50
percent in full-load and in part-load is
not representative, no other commenters
presented alternative data, nor is DOE
aware of any data that would be useful
to better characterize the appropriate
weighting factors. Therefore, in this
final rule, DOE is adopting a calculation
method that weights full-load and partload operation equally. Should DOE
become aware of any new data regarding
time spent operating at each input rate
or data specific to different furnace
types in the future, DOE could consider
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
revising the calculation accordingly in a
subsequent rulemaking.
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
tentatively determined not to account
for electrical energy consumption of
CWAF auxiliary power components
(e.g., controls and/or combustion
blowers/fans) or the supply air fan in
the CWAF test procedure. 87 FR 10726,
10739 (Feb. 25, 2022). Specifically,
regarding supply fan energy
consumption, DOE noted that CWAFs
are typically installed within the same
cabinet as a CUAC and that this energy
is generally accounted for in the current
CUAC test procedure, although furnaceonly operation hours are not included.
As such, DOE tentatively determined
that energy consumption during
furnace-only operation hours would be
better addressed in a future amendment
to the CUAC test procedure. Id.
Regarding auxiliary power
consumption, DOE tentatively
determined that including such power
consumption into a CWAF performance
metric would have a negligible impact
on the measured energy efficiency of a
CWAF. Id.
In response to the February 2022
NOPR, NYSERDA encouraged DOE to
measure fan energy consumption during
furnace-only operation in the CWAF test
procedure. (NYSERDA, No. 16 at p. 2)
NEEA also recommended that DOE
account for electricity consumption
used in a CUAC, including fan and
auxiliary energy use, that relates to
CWAF energy consumption. In relation
to DOE’s tentative determination in the
February 2022 NOPR that such energy
consumption would be better addressed
in a future amendment to the CUAC test
procedure, NEEA stated such an
approach would likely leave out the
portion of the hours during the year
where fan energy is consumed when
only the CWAF is operating. NEEA
stated that it understands DOE’s desire
for fan energy to ‘‘be captured in a
single test procedure,’’ but the
commenter argued that this goal is not
achievable when cooling and heating
efficiencies are regulated separately and
also not achievable in a market as
diverse as that for commercial HVAC.
Additionally, NEEA mentioned that
because fan and other auxiliary
electrical end uses are integral to the
function of any CWAF, it is critical than
any CWAF TP and performance metric
account for them. (NEEA, No. 24 at p.
4)
After carefully considering these
comments, DOE maintains its position
presented in February 2022 NOPR that,
at present, integrating the auxiliary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
electrical energy consumption into the
efficiency metric for CWAF would
result in negligible impact. Further,
DOE also maintains that the fan
efficiency is better accounted for in a
single test method that addresses all fan
energy consumption. Accordingly, DOE
is proposing to address the supply air
fan energy use for CWAFs, including
during operation in heating-only mode,
in the ongoing CUACs test procedure
rulemaking. Therefore, DOE is not
adopting measures of auxiliary electrical
energy use or the electrical energy use
of the supply air fan in this final rule.
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and
Clarifications
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
used the terms ‘‘vent hoods,’’ ‘‘vent
pipes,’’ and ‘‘flue outlets’’ to describe
the section of a CWAF that carries the
flue gas away from the unit. DOE
received a comment from AAON
recommending DOE use the term ‘‘flue
outlets,’’ because it is the most accurate
way to describe those components.
(AAON, No. 14 at p. 1) In response, DOE
has determined it appropriate to use
only the term ‘‘flue outlet(s)’’ in order to
prevent confusion associated with using
multiple terms to refer to the same
outlet. As such, DOE will use the term
‘‘flue outlet(s)’’ in this final rule, as well
as in appendix A and appendix B.
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Multiple Flue Outlets
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
proposed to add instructions to clarify
the test method for models with
multiple flue outlets. 87 FR 10726,
10740 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE proposed
that measurements used to calculate TE
(e.g., flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses), be made separately for each flue
outlet, and that they are weighted
proportionally to the size of each flue
outlet when calculating flue loss.
Further, DOE proposed that test
requirements, such as determining
when equilibrium conditions occur
based on the flue gas temperature, are
determined based these weighted
measurements. DOE noted that this
proposal is predicated on the
assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each flue
outlet is proportional to the outlet size.
DOE recognized that ‘‘size’’ of the flue
outlet may be measured in various
ways, and, therefore, the Department
proposed to specify that flue outlet size
would be determined by calculating the
outlet face area. DOE sought comments
on these proposals. Id.
Lennox stated that the size of the flue
outlet may not be representative of the
amount of flue exhaust passing through
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36227
the flue outlet, and that DOE should
consider relying on the supplemental
testing instructions or review the input
capacity for each heating section as the
weighted average instead of the crosssectional area of the flue outlet.
(Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3) AHRI and
Carrier supported clarifying how to test
units with multiple flue outlets but
recommended that the measurement
and performance rating for each flue
outlet should be based on input rating
of each furnace module instead of the
size of the flue outlet. (AHRI, No. 17 at
p. 4; Carrier, No. 22 at p. 4)
Based on these comments DOE
understands that the flue outlet size
may not directly correspond to the mass
flow of flue gases exiting from that
outlet. Consequently, DOE agrees that
the fuel input rating for each furnace
module would be a better indicator of
the flue gases exiting the outlet for that
specific module. Therefore, DOE
amends the test procedure to clarify that
for units with multiple flue gas outlets,
the measurements used to calculate TE
(e.g., flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses) are to be made separately for
each flue outlet, and are to be weighted
proportionally to the input capacity
associated with the furnace module.
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in
Models With Vent Space Limitations
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
noted that section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47–
2021 specifies measuring the flue gas
temperature 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. 87 FR 10726, 10740 (Feb.
25, 2022). DOE proposed to specify in
the DOE test procedure that when
testing gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs,
the flue gas temperatures shall be
measured using nine individual
thermocouples when the flue outlet is
larger than 2 inches in diameter and
may optionally be measured using five
individual thermocouples when the flue
outlet is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
which DOE noted aligns with the
approach in ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017.
Id. at 87 FR 10741.
AAON stated that flue outlet geometry
in CWAFs can vary in shape and that
the diagram referenced in ANSI/
ASHRAE 103 only accounts for a
circular geometry. Consequently, AAON
recommended that the number
thermocouples needed for testing
should be determined by the cross-
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36228
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
sectional area of the flue outlet. (AAON,
No. 14 at p. 1) Similarly, Lennox noted
that not all flue outlets are round, and,
therefore, the commenter suggested that
the number of thermocouples used
during the test should be determined
using the face area of the flue outlet.
(Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3) Carrier agreed
that fewer thermocouples should be
used for units with smaller flue outlets,
but also recommended the
determination be based on crosssectional face area, not diameter, since
flue outlets are not always circular.
(Carrier, No. 22 at p. 4) AHRI supported
DOE’s proposal that the number of
thermocouples used be dependent on
the flue outlet size; however, similar to
other commenters, AHRI recommend
that DOE base the determination of how
many thermocouples to use on the
cross-sectional area of the outlet, rather
than the diameter. AHRI also further
recommended DOE review and align its
provisions with the requirement
outlined in Figure 10 of AHRI 103.
(AHRI, No. 17 at p. 4)
DOE agrees that the determination of
the number of thermocouples used in
the flue outlet should be based on the
area of the flue outlet, rather than
diameter, because some flue outlets may
not be circular. Therefore, DOE is
adopting a modification to its February
2022 proposal so that the optional
allowance to use 5 thermocouples rather
than 9 in models with flue outlets that
are 2 inches or less in diameter applies
based on the cross-sectional area of the
flue outlet. For a circular flue with a
diameter of 2 inches, the area would be
3.14 square inches; thus, DOE is
amending the test procedure to allow
optional use of 5 thermocouples when
testing models with a flue outlet that
has a cross sectional area of 3.14 square
inches or less.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
3. Flue Loss Determination
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–2012
and section 5.40 of 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.10 If these
10 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
conditions are met, either calculation
method may be used. In the February
2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require
that the calculation method must be
used when determining flue loss
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. 87 FR 10726, 10741 (Feb.
25, 2022).
DOE received comments from Daikin,
Carrier, Lennox, Rheem, and AHRI that
supported this proposal, and received
no other comments on this topic.
(Daikin, No. 25 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 19
at p. 3; Carrier, No. 22 at p. 5; Rheem,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p.
21; AHRI, No. 17 at p. 4) Based on the
previously discussed rationale, DOE has
determined that requiring the
calculation method will help improve
test repeatability. As such, DOE is
requiring that the calculation method,
not the nomograph method, from Annex
I in ANSI Z21.47–2021 be used for the
determination of flue loss.
4. General Approach
In response to the February 2022
NOPR, DOE received several comments
regarding its general approach to the test
method for CWAFs.
AGA and APGA recommend DOE
consider implementing the
recommendations for the recent
National Academies of Sciences
Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) on
appliance standards rulemakings,
whether for test procedures or energy
conservation standards. (AGA and
APGA, No. 23 at pp. 2–3)
Given that this is a test procedure
rulemaking for which DOE must meet
specific statutory criteria as outlined in
42 U.S.C. 6314, the recommendations in
the NASEM report, which pertain
specifically to the processes by which
DOE analyzes energy conservation
standards, are not applicable. DOE will
consider this comment in a separate
rulemaking considering all covered
product and covered equipment
categories.
DOE also received comments from the
Joint Advocates and NEEA
recommending that DOE consider a
‘‘whole box’’ approach for measuring
the performance of CWAFs, similar to
the approach found in CSA P.8–2022,
‘‘Thermal Efficiencies of Industrial and
Commercial Gas-fired Package
Furnaces.’’ 11 (Joint Advocates, No. 21 at
pp. 1–2, NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 1–5) More
11 CSA P.8–2022 is available for purchase at:
www.csagroup.org/store/product/CSA%20P.8:22/.
(Last accessed Jan. 31, 2023).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
specifically, the Joint Advocates and
NEEA stated that while they supported
DOE’s efforts to establish TE2, they
encouraged DOE to evaluate the
potential use of CSA P.8–2022. They
asserted that CSA P.8 would more
accurately represent overall efficiency of
a CWAF because the new heating metric
in that standard (i.e., ‘‘total heating
season coefficient of performance’’)
calculates the efficiency of a CWAF
using a more holistic approach, by
incorporating factors such as burner
efficiency, total enclosure heat losses,
fan energy consumption, and heat gains
from heat recovery. Id. Similarly,
NYSERDA also encouraged DOE to
consider any forthcoming updates that
may better measure the holistic energy
use of CWAFs. (NYSERDA, No. 16 at p.
2)
As discussed in section I.A of this
document, 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. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) In this case, the
industry test standards referenced by
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are ANSI
Z21.47 for gas-fired CWAFs and UL 727
for oil-fired CWAFs. The test methods
adopted in this final rule incorporate by
reference those industry standards, and
are generally consistent with and build
upon those industry standards by
providing clarifications or other
modifications, as necessary, to meet the
requirements of EPCA. DOE has
determined that the test procedures for
CWAFs adopted in this final rule will
produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency of CWAFs during a
representative average use cycle, are not
unduly burdensome to conduct, as
required by EPCA. Further, DOE notes
that the scope of CSA P.8–2022
indicates that the standard is intended
to provide ‘‘cold climate’’ performance
criteria that is representative of use in
colder climates found in Canada and
other northern locations, which may not
be representative of the U.S. as a whole.
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, DOE did not find it necessary
to move to a test method that uses the
approach taken by CSA P.8–2022. In
response to NYSERDA, DOE will
continue to monitor future applicable
industry test standard updates related to
CWAFs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted
CWAFs test procedure amendments is
30 days after the date of publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.
Regarding the compliance date, EPCA
prescribes that 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 for CWAFs, beginning
360 days after the date of publication of
this final rule in the Federal Register.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
To the extent the modified test
procedure adopted in this final rule is
required only for the evaluation under
updated CWAF energy conservation
standards (i.e., standards denominated
in terms of the new TE2 metric),
compliance with the amended test
procedure does not require use of such
modified test procedure provisions until
the compliance date of such updated
standards, if adopted.
G. Test Procedure Costs
EPCA requires that the test
procedures for CWAFs be those
generally accepted industry testing
procedures or rating procedures
developed or recognized by either AHRI
or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A))
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 an
amended test procedure would not meet
the requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2)–(3) related to representative
use and test burden. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B))
In this final rule, DOE is amending
the test procedure for CWAFs for
determining TE by incorporating by
reference the most up-to-date versions
of the industry test standards referenced
in the DOE test procedure, and by
providing additional detail for the test
setup for models with multiple flue
outlets and models with flue outlets
having space limitations. DOE has
determined that these amendments to
the test procedure for determining TE
would not be unduly burdensome for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
manufacturers to conduct, and that the
test procedures for this equipment are
consistent with the industry test
procedure updates. DOE has also
determined that the 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 to conduct. DOE expects
that the test procedure in appendix A
for determining TE will not increase
testing costs.
DOE is also establishing a new metric
for CWAFs, TE2, and a new appendix B,
which includes the test procedure for
determining TE2. In the February 2022
NOPR, DOE estimated that the
additional test cost due to the additional
part-load test and jacket loss test
required for the TE2 metric would be
$2,200, compared to the DOE test
procedure using the TE metric, which
DOE estimated 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,12 DOE estimated the
testing cost associated with the newly
proposed appendix B test procedure to
be $12,800 per basic model. 87 FR
10726, 10741–10742 (Feb. 25, 2022).
DOE also noted that in accordance with
10 CFR 429.41, CWAF manufacturers
may elect to use an AEDM to rate
models for the TE2 metric, which
significantly reduces testing costs to
industry. DOE estimated the permanufacturer cost to develop and
validate an AEDM to determine TE2 for
CWAF equipment to be $17,300. DOE
estimated a cost of $46 per basic model
for determining energy efficiency using
a validated AEDM.13 87 FR 10726,
10742 (Feb. 25, 2022). Additionally,
DOE has determined that the appendix
B test procedure and TE2 calculation
would alter the measured energy
efficiency of a CWAF.
DOE received multiple comments on
the test cost and burden associated with
performing the TE2 test procedure.
12 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.
13 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36229
Rheem generally stated that measuring
jacket loss is very labor-intensive due to
the need to take apart the unit and
presents a burden to manufacturers.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
15 at pp. 23–24) AHRI asserted that
there are external costs associated with
this proposed test procedure change that
DOE has not accounted for, including
bandwidth limitations at laboratory
facilities that would cause
manufacturers to test internally and
which could delay testing of new units
while existing models are retested.
(AHRI, No. 17 at p. 5) AHRI also
asserted that DOE did not accurately
account for the cost of performing a
jacket loss test at full-load and part-load
because determining compliance with
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requires that
only the worst-case unit in a product
line needs to be tested, but TE2 would
require manufacturers to run the jacket
loss test twice every time a unit is
tested. AHRI also stated that there are
no AEDMs currently available for TE2
and developing an AEDM is extremely
costly due to the number of variables
that need to be accounted for and
modeled accurately (e.g., fan capacity,
cabinet geometry, variation in size of the
heater, and the inclusion of dampers,
energy recovery ventilators (ERVs), and
heat recovery ventilators (HRVs) in the
airflow path). AHRI also disagreed with
the Department’s estimate that the
associated rerating costs would be
approximately $17,400, because
manufacturers will need to validate any
new AEDM by testing at least two (2)
basic models, which will have
associated manufacturing and test costs.
Instead, AHRI estimated that the cost of
the test samples alone will reach
upwards of $30,000 (without accounting
for the AEDM development cost or test
time), and that the test time must
include a minimum of several days to
set up for each sample, with laboratory
time being very expensive. (Id.) Daikin
supported AHRI’s comments on this
topic and added that testing cost and
burden will increase substantially if
manufacturers must assess part-load
conditions and jacket loss. Daikin noted
that if ambient conditions must be
controlled in psychometric rooms to
conduct jacket loss testing, it could
impact availability of those test rooms
for other equipment such as commercial
unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 3) Carrier
stated that DOE underestimated the cost
to validate an AEDM, because CWAF
sizes vary between 225,000 Btu/h and
2,000,000 Btu/h (which can lead to an
extremely large variation in cost).
Carrier stated that to create an accurate
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36230
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
AEDM, a manufacturer would need to
consider a ‘‘worst case’’ model, and that
this can cost upwards of $50,000.
(Carrier, No. 22 at p. 5)
In response, DOE notes that the
estimated cost of testing for TE2
presented in the February 2022 NOPR is
based on actual price quotations from
third-party laboratories. Additionally,
the estimated cost to develop an AEDM
reflects 80 hours to develop the AEDM
based on existing simulation tools, plus
an additional 16 hours to validate the
AEDM at a rate of $46 per hour, plus the
cost to conduct the test on two units as
required by 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv).
DOE recognizes that depending on each
individual manufacturer’s approach to
testing and rating their models (whether
based on actual testing, AEDMs, or a
combination of approaches) and the
number of models they would need to
rate with TE2, test costs could vary
significantly. DOE’s estimates are
intended to represent the typical or
most likely costs given the various
pathways available for rating TE2.
However, DOE recognizes that the costs
could be higher. Although TE2 testing
will be cost more than the current TE
test method due to the need to perform
jacket loss testing and testing at the
minimum input capacity, DOE has
concluded that the additional costs are
not unduly burdensome and are
justified due to the improved
representativeness of TE2 as compared
to TE. Further, because there is no
requirement to make representations
with TE2 at this time, DOE does not
view laboratory bandwidth limitations
as a significant issue. However, if DOE
were to transition to standards based on
the TE2 metric in the future, which
would require manufacturers to make
representations of TE2, DOE notes that
it would provide a lead time before
compliance is required, consistent with
the requirements of EPCA,14 which
should alleviate any laboratory
bandwidth issues.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
14 Under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv), if DOE
amends standards pursuant to a six-year-lookback
review initiated under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i),
amended standards apply a minimum of three years
after publication of the amended standards. Under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)(i), if DOE amends standards
pursuant to an amendment to ASHRAE Standard
90.1 levels, amended standards apply a minimum
of 2 years after the effective date of the minimum
energy efficiency requirement in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as
supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094,
‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88
FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires
agencies, to the extent permitted by law,
to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation
only upon a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify its costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden
on society, consistent with obtaining
regulatory objectives, taking into
account, among other things, and to the
extent practicable, the costs of
cumulative regulations; (3) select, in
choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that
maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental,
public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and
equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of
compliance that regulated entities must
adopt; and (5) identify and assess
available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing
economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or
marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be
made by the public. DOE emphasizes as
well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to
use the best available techniques to
quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as
possible. In its guidance, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such
techniques may include identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes. For the reasons stated in the
preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also
requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant
regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review.
OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action does not constitute a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
this action was not submitted to OIRA
for review under E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of a final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA) for any final rule where the
agency was first required by law to
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
publish a proposed rule 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
(August 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. DOE reviewed
this final rule under the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003.
On February 25, 2022, DOE published
in the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (February 2022
NOPR) proposing to update the
references in the Federal test procedure
to the most recent version of the
relevant industry test procedures as they
relate to CWAFs, as well as to adopt a
new TE2 metric. Specifically, DOE
proposed to adopt two appendices to 10
CFR 431.76—appendix A for
determining TE and appendix B for
determining TE2. The TE test method in
appendix A is similar to the current
method for TE, with several
clarifications and updates to incorporate
by reference the most recent versions of
appliable industry test standards. The
TE2 test method in appendix B builds
upon the TE test method in appendix A,
but also accounts for jacket losses and
operation at the minimum input rating.
As part of the February 2022 NOPR,
DOE conducted its initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA). 87 FR 10726,
10742–10744 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE used
the Small Business Administration
(SBA) small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers
qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).15 The
SBA considers a business entity to be a
small business, if, together with its
affiliates, it employs less than a
threshold number of workers specified
in 13 CFR part 121. CWAF
manufacturers are classified under
NAICS code 333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning
and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR
15 The size standards are listed by NAICS code
and industry description and are available at:
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-sizestandards (Last accessed Feb. 8, 2022).
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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 relied on publicly-available
databases to identify potential small
businesses that manufacture equipment
covered by this rulemaking. DOE
utilized the California Energy
Commission’s Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System
(MAEDbS) 16 and DOE’s Certification
Compliance Database (CCD) 17 to
identify potential small businesses that
manufacture CWAFs covered by this
rulemaking. 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. DOE
identified one small, domestic OEM for
consideration. DOE used subscriptionbased business information tools (e.g.,
Dun & Bradstreet reports 18) to
determine headcount and revenue of the
small business.
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
determined the one small manufacturer
had average annual revenues of
approximately $3.3 million.
Additionally, DOE identified four basic
models from the small manufacturer.
DOE estimated the re-rating costs for the
manufacturer to be approximately
$17,400 when making use of AEDMs.
The cost for this small manufacturer to
re-rate all basic models was estimated to
be less than 1 percent of annual
revenue. DOE also estimated the rerating cost for the small manufacturer
based on physical testing of all four
models based on third-party laboratory
testing. Relying on pricing quotes from
third-party laboratories, DOE estimated
costs of approximately $51,200 for the
small business. The cost for this small
manufacturer to re-rate all basic models
with physical testing was estimated to
be less than 1.6 percent of annual
revenue. 87 FR 10726, 10744 (Feb. 25,
2022).
DOE did not receive any comments on
the number of small entities in response
to the February 2022 NOPR. As
discussed in section III.G of this
document, DOE received several
comments that suggested that the
16 MAEDbS can be accessed at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/
ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last accessed Feb. 8, 2022).
17 Certified equipment in the CCD is 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).
18 The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription
login is accessible online at app.dnbhoovers.com/
(Last accessed Feb. 8, 2023).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
February 2022 NOPR underestimated
the cost of testing for TE2 generally.
However, as discussed previously, the
estimated cost of testing for TE2
presented in the February 2022 NOPR is
based on actual price quotations from
third-party laboratories. Additionally,
the estimated cost to develop an AEDM
reflects 80 hours to develop the AEDM
based on existing simulation tools, plus
an additional 16 hours to validate the
AEDM at a rate of $46 per hour, plus the
cost to conduct the test on two units as
required by 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv).
Although DOE recognizes that each
individual manufacturer’s approach to
testing and rating their models (whether
based on actual testing, AEDMs, or a
combination of approaches) could cause
test costs to vary significantly, DOE’s
estimates are intended to represent the
typical or most likely costs given the
various pathways available for rating
TE2, and, therefore, DOE maintained its
estimates from the February 2022 NOPR
for this final rule.
On the basis of the de minimis
compliance burden, DOE concludes and
certifies that the cost effects accruing
from this test procedure final rule
would not have a ‘‘significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities,’’ and that the preparation of a
FRFA is not warranted. DOE will
transmit a certification and supporting
statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36231
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
DOE is not amending the certification
or reporting requirements for CWAFs in
this final rule. Instead, DOE may
consider proposals to amend the
certification requirements and reporting
for CWAFs under a separate rulemaking
regarding appliance and equipment
certification. DOE will address changes
to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at
that time, as necessary.
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
DOE has analyzed this regulation in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) and DOE’s
NEPA implementing regulations (10
CFR part 1021). In this final rule, DOE
establishes 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 NEPA and
DOE’s implementing regulations,
because it is a rulemaking that interprets
or amends an existing rule or regulation
that does not change the environmental
effect of the rule or regulation being
amended. 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,
subpart D, appendix A, sections 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 (August 10, 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
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36232
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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 examined this final rule
and has determined that it will 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
final 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. 6297(d)) No further
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
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, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
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
regulatory action resulting 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
www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this final 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
final rule will 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 regulation
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
will 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 final 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
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 significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This 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
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
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–
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 amendments to the Federal test
procedure for CWAFs contained in this
final rule adopt testing methods
contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: AHRI
1500–2015 (which in turn references
ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–14a,
ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291–
10), ANSI Z21.47–2021 (which in turn
references ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004)), ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022, and
UL 727–2018 (which in turn references
ASTM E230/E230M–17 and NFPA 97–
2003). 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 they were
developed in a manner that fully
provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE has
consulted with both the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
about the impact on competition of
using the methods contained in these
standards and has received no
comments objecting to their use.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the final rule is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated
by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by
reference the following test standards:
AHRI 1500–2015 provides instruction
for how to perform fuel oil analysis and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
for how to calculate flue loss of oil-fired
CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be
obtained from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or
online at: www.ahrinet.org.
ANSI Z21.47–2021 provides
instruction for how to test gas-fired
CWAFs.
ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022 provides
instruction for how to test residential
furnaces and boilers, which DOE is
referencing for the purpose of providing
instruction for testing condensing gasfired CWAFs.
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)
is referenced by ANSI Z21.47–2021 and
specifies thermocouple requirements for
when testing gas-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/
ASHRAE 103–2022, and ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), can be obtained
the from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W 43rd
Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036,
(212) 642–4900, or online at:
www.webstore.ansi.org.
ASTM D240–09 is referenced in AHRI
1500–2015, and it contains fuel oil
heating value requirements.
ASTM D396–14a is referenced in
AHRI 1500–2015, and it contains
general fuel oil requirements.
ASTM D4809–09a is referenced in
AHRI 1500–2015, and it contains fuel
oil hydrogen and carbon content
requirements.
ASTM D5291–10 is referenced in
AHRI 1500–2015, and it contains fuel
oil density requirements.
ASTM E230/E230M–17 is referenced
in UL 727–2018, and it specifies
thermocouple requirements for when
testing oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ASTM D240–09, ASTM
D396–14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM
D5291–10, and ASTM E230/E230M–17
can be obtained from ASTM
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive,
P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA
19428, (877) 909–2786 or online at:
www.astm.org.
NFPA 97–2003 is referenced in UL
727–2018 and provides definitions for
the terms ‘‘combustible’’ and
‘‘noncombustible.’’
Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be
obtained from the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), 1
Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169–
7471, 1–800–344–3555 or online at:
www.nfpa.org.
UL 727–2018 provides instruction for
how to test oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727–2018 can be
obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36233
Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272–
8800, or online at:
www.standardscatalog.ul.com.
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final 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 May 22, 2023, by
Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 23,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations 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
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36234
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
percent minus percent flue loss and
jacket loss.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Revise § 431.75 to read as follows:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
§ 431.75 Materials incorporated by
reference.
(a) 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 incorporation by
reference (IBR) 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, 1000
Independence Ave. SW, EE–5B,
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–9127,
Buildings@ee.doe.gov, www.energy.gov/
eere/buildings/building-technologiesoffice. For information on the
availability of this material at NARA,
visit: www.archives.gov/federal-register/
cfr/ibr-locations.html or email:
fr.inspection@nara.gov. The material
may be obtained from the sources in the
following paragraphs of this section.
(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2311 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or online at:
www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500–2015 (‘‘AHRI
1500–2015’’), Performance Rating of
Commercial Space Heating Boilers,
ANSI-approved November 28, 2014; IBR
approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ANSI. American National
Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212)
642–4900 or online at: www.ansi.org.
(1) CSA/ANSI Z21.47:21, (‘‘ANSI
Z21.47–2021’’), Gas-fired central
furnaces, ANSI-approved April 21,
2021; IBR approved for appendices A
and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) ASHRAE. American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers Inc., 180
Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree
Corners, Georgia 30092, (404) 636–8400,
or online at: www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2022
(‘‘ASHRAE 103–2022’’), Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, approved January
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
10, 2022; IBR approved for appendix A
to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) ASME. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Service Center,
22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield,
NJ 07007, (973) 882–1170, or online at:
www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974
(R2004), Supplement to ASME
Performance Test Codes: Part 3:
Temperature Measurement, Instruments
and Apparatus, reaffirmed 2004; IBR
approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) ASTM. ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West
Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909–
2786, or online at: www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM D240–09, Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter, approved July 1, 2009; IBR
approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(2) ASTM D396–14a, Standard
Specification for Fuel Oils, approved
October 1, 2014; IBR approved for
appendix A to this subpart.
(3) ASTM D4809–09a, Standard Test
Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb
Calorimeter (Precision Method);
approved September 1, 2009; IBR
approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(4) ASTM D5291–10, Standard Test
Methods for Instrumental Determination
of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in
Petroleum Products and Lubricants,
approved May 1, 2010; IBR approved for
appendix A to this subpart.
(5) 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
appendix A to this subpart.
(g) NFPA. National Fire Protection
Association, 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169–7471, 1–800–344–
3555, or online at: www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 97 (‘‘NFPA 97–2003’’),
Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to
Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing
Appliances; copyright 2023; IBR
approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(h) UL. Underwriters Laboratories,
Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL
60062, (847) 272–8800, or online at:
www.ul.com.
(1) UL 727 (‘‘UL 727–2018’’),
Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central
Furnaces, Tenth Edition, published
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
January 31, 2018; IBR approved for
appendix A to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
■ 4. Revise § 431.76 to read as follows:
§ 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. Appendix A to subpart D of part
431 is added to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for Measurement
of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial
Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency)
Note: On and after May 28, 2024, 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 103–2022, UL 727–2018, or
AHRI 1500–2015. On and after July 3, 2023
and prior to May 28, 2024, manufacturers
must test commercial warm air furnaces in
accordance with this appendix or 10 CFR
431.76 as it appeared on January 1, 2023.
DOE notes that, because testing under this
section is required as of May 28, 2024,
manufacturers may wish to begin using this
amended test procedure as soon as possible.
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.
Manufacturers must use the results of
testing under appendix B to this subpart to
determine compliance with any standards for
commercial warm air furnaces that use the
thermal efficiency 2 (TE2) metric.
0. Incorporation by reference.
In § 431.75, DOE incorporated by reference
the entire standard for AHRI 1500–2015,
ANSI Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2022,
ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), ASTM D240–
09, ASTM D396–14a, ASTM D4809–09a,
ASTM D5291–10, ASTM E230/E230M–17,
NFPA 97–2003, and UL 727–2018. However,
for standards AHRI 1500–2015, ANSI
Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2022, and UL
727–2018, only the enumerated provisions of
those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
0.1 ANSI Z21.47–2021
(a) Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5,
5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 as specified in section
1.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 5.40 as specified in sections 1.1
and 3.1 of this appendix;
(c) Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 4.1
of this appendix;
(d) Annex I as specified in section 3.1 of
this appendix.
0.2 ASHRAE 103–2022
(a) Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 as
specified in section 2.2 of this appendix;
(b) Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 as
specified in section 4.1 of this appendix.
0.3 UL 727–2018
(a) Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6,
41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 as specified in
section 1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Figure 40.3 as specified in section 2.1
of this appendix.
0.4 AHRI 1500–2015
(a) Section C3.2.1.1 as specified in section
1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 as
specified in section 3.2 of this appendix.
1. Test setup 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.
1.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air
furnaces. The test setup, including flue
requirement, instrumentation, test
conditions, and measurements for
determining thermal efficiency are as
specified in section 1.3 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 1.3
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 flue outlets that have a
cross-sectional area of 3.14 square inches or
less), follow the provisions in section 1.3 of
this appendix. 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.
1.2 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
1.3 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),
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control
Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation
Test), and 46 (Air Flow, Downflow or
Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 1.3 of
this appendix and UL 727–2018 have
conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when
testing units with flue outlets that have a
cross-sectional area of 3.14 inches or less),
follow the provisions in section 1.3 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.
1.3 Additional test setup requirements for
gas-fired and oil-fired commercial warm air
furnaces
1.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas-fired
and oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces
with flue outlets that have a cross-sectional
area of 3.14 square inches or less. For units
with flue outlets having a cross-sectional area
of 3.14 square inches or less, the flue gas
temperatures may optionally be measured
using five individual thermocouples, instead
of nine thermocouples.
1.3.2 Procedure for flue gas
measurements when testing units with
multiple flue outlets. For units that have
multiple flue outlets, record flue gas
measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature,
CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each
individual flue outlet and calculate a
weighted-average value based on the readings
of all flue outlets. To determine the weighted
average for each measurement, first
determine the input rating of the furnace
module associated with each flue outlet.
Then multiply the ratio of the input rating for
the furnace module associated with each
individual flue outlet to the total nameplate
input rating of the furnace (i.e., the input
rating associated with each individual flue
outlet divided by the total nameplate input
rating) by that flue outlet’s respective
component measurement and the sum of all
of the products of the calculations for all of
the flue outlets to determine the weightedaverage values. Use the weighted-average
values to determine flue loss, and whether
equilibrium conditions are met before the
official test period.
2. Additional test measurements
2.1 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
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
36235
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.
2.2 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 103–2022 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
1.1 of this appendix.
3. Calculation of thermal efficiency
3.1 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 of ANSI Z21.47–2021
shall be used.
3.2 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).
4. 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.
4.1 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
103–2022, 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.
4.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency
for condensing commercial warm air
furnaces. Adjust the thermal efficiency as
calculated in section 3.1 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 4.1 of this appendix, to obtain the
thermal efficiency of a condensing furnace.
6. Appendix B to subpart D of part 431
is added to read as follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
36236
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 106 / Friday, June 2, 2023 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431–
Uniform Test Method for Measurement
of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial
Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency Two)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of
testing under this appendix B to determine
compliance with any standards for
commercial warm air furnaces that use the
thermal efficiency 2 (TE2) metric. In
addition, manufacturers may optionally make
representations of energy use or efficiency of
this equipment using TE2 as determined
using this appendix starting on July 3, 2023.
0. Incorporation by Reference.
In § 431.75, DOE incorporates by reference
the entire standard ANSI Z21.47–2021.
However, only section 5.40 and Appendix J
of ANSI Z21.47–2021 apply, as specified in
sections 1.2 and 1.6 of this appendix.
1. Testing
1.1 Set up and test the unit according to
sections 0 through 4 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 3 and 4
of appendix A to this subpart.
1.2 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
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. The jacket
shall consist of the surfaces surrounding the
heating section of the furnace. The jacket
includes all surfaces separating the heating
section from the supply air, outside air, or
condenser section, including the bottom
surface separating the heating section from
the basepan.
1.3 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed only for indoor installation
within a heated space, jacket loss 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 1.2 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 1.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
1.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in
section 1.3 of this appendix from the TE
determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to
determine the full-load efficiency.
1.5 Set up and test the unit according to
sections 0 through 4 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 3 and 4 of appendix A
to this subpart.
1.6 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed for outdoor installation
(including but not limited to CWAFs that are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:04 Jun 01, 2023
Jkt 259001
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 1.2 of
this appendix at the maximum nameplate
input may be used.
1.7 For commercial warm air furnaces
that are designed only for indoor installation
within a heated space, jacket loss 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 1.6 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 1.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
1.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in
section 1.7 of this appendix from the TE
determined in section 1.5 of this appendix to
determine the part-load efficiency.
1.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of
the full-load and part-load efficiencies as
determined in sections 1.4 and 1.8 of this
appendix, respectively.
[FR Doc. 2023–11341 Filed 6–1–23; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2023–0434; Product
Identifier 91–NM–255–AD; Amendment 39–
22450; AD 92–02–14 R1]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; removal.
AGENCY:
The FAA is removing
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 92–02–14,
which applied to certain Airbus SAS
Model A320 series airplanes. AD 92–
02–14 required inspection for correct
installation of the flexible control cables
on the overwing emergency escape
slides. The FAA issued AD 92–02–14 to
prevent failure of the overwing
emergency escape slides to deploy,
which would compromise use of the
exit during an emergency. Since the
FAA issued AD 92–02–14, no new
occurrences of incorrect cable
installations have been reported, and
existing maintenance activities are
adequate to prevent new occurrences.
SUMMARY:
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
This AD becomes effective June
2, 2023.
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2023–0434; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, mandatory
continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
Dan
Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone 206–231–3225; email
Dan.Rodina@faa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
PO 00000
Therefore, the FAA has determined that
AD 92–02–14 is no longer necessary.
Accordingly, AD 92–02–14 is removed.
Sfmt 4700
The FAA issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by removing AD 92–02–14,
Amendment 39–8150 (57 FR 5375,
February 14, 1992) (AD 92–02–14). AD
92–02–14 applied to certain Airbus SAS
Model A320 series airplanes. The NPRM
was published in the Federal Register
on March 24, 2023 (88 FR 17751). The
NPRM was prompted by the
determination that AD 92–02–14 is no
longer necessary. AD 92–02–14 required
inspection for correct installation of the
flexible control cables on the overwing
emergency escape slides. The FAA
issued AD 92–02–14 to prevent failure
of the overwing emergency escape slides
to deploy, which would compromise
use of the exit during an emergency.
Since the FAA issued AD 92–02–14, no
new occurrences of incorrect cable
installations have been reported, and
existing maintenance activities are
adequate to prevent new occurrences.
The NPRM proposed to remove AD 92–
02–14. The FAA is issuing this AD to
remove AD 92–02–14.
Discussion of Final Airworthiness
Directive
Comments
The FAA received a comment from
The Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), in support of the
NPRM without change.
E:\FR\FM\02JNR1.SGM
02JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 106 (Friday, June 2, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36217-36236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11341]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending the Federal
test procedures for commercial warm air furnaces (CWAFs) to incorporate
the latest versions of the industry test standards that are currently
incorporated by reference. DOE is also establishing a new metric,
Thermal Efficiency Two (TE2), and corresponding test procedure. Use of
the newly established 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 is adopting
additional specifications for CWAFs with multiple flue outlets or small
flue outlets.
DATES: The effective date of this rule is July 3, 2023. These
amendments will be mandatory for CWAF equipment testing starting May
28, 2024. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July
3, 2023.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov
under docket number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents
listed in the index may be publicly available, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041. The docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the
docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 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) 597-6737. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 36218]]
DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standards into
part 431:
ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating
Boilers (``AHRI 1500-2015'');
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
www.ahrinet.org.
CSA/ANSI Z21.47:21, Gas-fired central furnaces (``ANSI Z21.47-
2021'');
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), Supplement to ASME Performance
Test Codes: Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and Apparatus;
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022, Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers (``ASHRAE 103-
2022'');
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022, can be obtained from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at: www.webstore.ansi.org.
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;
ASTM E230/E230M-17, Standard Specification for Temperature-
Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples (``ASTM
E230/E230M-17'');
Copies of ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-
10, and ASTM E230/E230M-17 can be obtained from ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877)
909-2786 or online at: www.astm.org.
NFPA 97-2003, Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys,
Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained from the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-
7471, (1-800-344-3555) or online at: www.nfpa.org.
UL 727, Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces (``UL 727-
2018'');
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062,
(847) 272-8800 or online at: www.standardscatalog.ul.com.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.N of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. UL 727
2. HI BTS and AHRI 1500
3. ANSI Z21.47
4. 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 Flue
Outlets
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space
Limitations
3. Flue Loss Determination
4. General Approach
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
G. Test Procedure Costs
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
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. Congressional Notification
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. 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 and
amend 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\ among
other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) 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. This covered equipment includes CWAFs,
the subject of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\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), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 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 other 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however,
grant waivers
[[Page 36219]]
of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other
provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the criteria and
procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. Specifically, 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 (or class thereof) 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 or rating 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, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings'' (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 seven 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. 6314(a)(1)-(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, the Department 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 in the Federal Register its determination not to amend the
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) As discussed further in
section I.B of this document, in January 2023, ASHRAE released the
latest version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022),
which updated the referenced industry standards for testing CWAFs to
reflect the most recent versions of those standards that are currently
available, thereby triggering DOE's rulemaking obligations under EPCA.
DOE is publishing this final rule amending the test procedure for CWAFs
in satisfaction of both the ``ASHRAE trigger'' requirement under 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and the 7-year-lookback review requirement
specified in EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1).
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 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) standard 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 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 (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 in the Federal Register 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.
Under EPCA's seven-year-lookback provision, DOE initiated a test
procedure rulemaking for CWAFs by publishing a request for information
(RFI) in the Federal Register on May 5, 2020 (May 2020 RFI). 85 FR
26626. The May 2020 RFI solicited 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. Id.
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the CWAFs
test procedure in the Federal Register on February 25, 2022 that
presented DOE's proposals to amend that test procedure. 87 FR 10726
(February 2022 NOPR). DOE held a webinar public meeting related to this
NOPR on March 29, 2022. DOE received comments in response to the
February 2022 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
[[Page 36220]]
Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions or Oral Comments
in Response to the February 2022 NOPR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviation used
Commenter(s) in this Final Rule Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON Inc........................ AAON.............. Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.............. Manufacturer Trade
Refrigeration Institute. Association.
American Gas Association and AGA and APGA...... Utility Trade
American Public Gas Association. Association.
Appliance Standards Awareness Joint Advocates... Efficiency
Project, and Natural Resources Advocacy
Defense Council. Organization.
California Energy Commission.... CEC............... Efficiency
Advocacy
Organization.
Carrier Corporation............. Carrier........... Manufacturer.
Daikin Comfort Technologies Daikin............ Manufacturer.
Manufacturing.
Lennox International Inc........ Lennox............ Manufacturer.
New York State Energy Research NYSERDA........... State Agency.
and Development Authority.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA.............. Efficiency
Alliance. Advocacy
Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Company, San Diego Gas and
Electric, and Southern
California Edison
(collectively, the ``California
Investor-Owned Utilities'').
Rheem Manufacturing............. Rheem............. Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively similar to any oral comments provided during the
March 29, 2022 NOPR webinar public meeting, DOE cites the written
comments throughout this final rule. For the party that provided
substantive oral comments at the March 29, 2022 NOPR webinar public
meeting but did not submit written comments, DOE cites the public
meeting transcript.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since publication of the February 2022 NOPR, DOE would note the
following additional developments which are relevant to this rulemaking
proceeding. As discussed, EPCA requires DOE to use industry test
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE as referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)-(B)) The latest update
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was released in January 2023 (ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2022). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 references ANSI Z21.47-2021 as
the test method for gas-fired CWAFs and UL 727-2018 as the test method
for oil-fired CWAFs. This action by ASHRAE triggered DOE's rulemaking
obligations under EPCA. As noted previously, in such cases, EPCA
requires DOE to amend the Federal test procedure to be consistent with
these amended industry test procedures, unless DOE determines, by rule
published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that to do so would not meeting the statutory requirements
related to representativeness and not being unduly burdensome. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Furthermore, EPCA also requires that, at least
once every seven years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each class of
covered equipment, including those 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)) This
rulemaking satisfies both of these statutory obligations.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
In this final rule, DOE is amending 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 (TE) 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 103-2022 (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 and ANSI/ASTM E230/230M-17), 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 flue outlets, and units
with flue outlets having a cross-sectional area of 3.14 square inches
or less; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D,
appendix B (appendix B), which generally requires testing as in
appendix A, but which establishes a new metric, ``TE2.'' The new TE2
metric accounts for jacket losses and part-load operation in addition
to accounting for flue losses. Manufacturers can use appendix B to make
voluntary representations of TE2; representations using this test
procedure are not mandatory until such time as compliance is required
with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE
adopt such standards.
The amendments adopted in this final rule are summarized in Table
II.1 compared to the test procedure prior to amendment, as well as the
reason for the change.
[[Page 36221]]
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in the Amended Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE test procedure prior to Applicable test
amendment Amended test procedures procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referenced UL 727-2006 for testing Incorporate by reference UL appendix A and Align with industry
oil-fired CWAFs. 727-2018 for testing oil- appendix B. standard update.
fired CWAFs, and the
standards referenced in UL
727-2018 that are
necessary in performing
the DOE test procedure
(i.e., NFPA 97-2003 and
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17).
Referenced HI BTS-2000 for Incorporate by reference appendix A and Align with industry
performing fuel oil analysis and AHRI 1500-2015 for appendix B. 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).
Referenced ANSI Z21.47-2012 for Incorporate by reference appendix A and Align with industry
testing gas-fired CWAFs. ANSI Z21.47-2021 for appendix B. 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)).
Referenced ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 for Incorporate by reference appendix A and Align with industry
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022 for appendix B. standard update.
testing condensing gas-
fired CWAFs.
Did not specify how to test units Adds specifications for appendix A and Additional
with multiple flue outlets. units with multiple flue appendix B. specification to
outlets. Measurements made improve consistency
in each flue outlet shall and repeatability in
be averaged or adjusted testing.
using a weighted average,
depending on the input
capacity of the furnace
module associated with
each flue outlet.
Did not specify how to test units Adds specifications to appendix A and Additional
with flue outlets that are too address units with small appendix B. specification to
small to fit nine thermocouples. flue outlets. Units with improve consistency
flue outlets that are 3.14 and repeatability in
inches or smaller in cross- testing.
sectional area may
optionally use 5
thermocouples.
Efficiency metric (TE) only Establishes a new metric appendix B............ Improve
accounted 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 determined that the adopted amendments for the test
procedure at appendix A described in section III of this document will
not alter the measured TE of CWAFs, that the test procedures are not
unduly burdensome to conduct, and that the 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.
DOE has determined that the additional amendments for appendix B,
which adopt TE2 as a new efficiency metric for CWAFs, do alter the
reported efficiency of CWAFs. However, testing in accordance with the
TE2 test procedure is not required until such time as compliance is
required with any amended energy conservation standards based on
appendix B. Prior to such date, voluntary representations of TE2 may be
made, but they must be based upon use of the test procedure in appendix
B.
The amendments adopted in this final rule are discussed in detail
in section III of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this
final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register. Representations of energy use or energy efficiency must be
based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedures
beginning 360 days after the date of publication of this final rule in
the Federal Register.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE describes the adopted amendments to
the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE also discusses issues raised by
commenters on the February 2022 NOPR, along with DOE's responses.
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.
In response to the February 2022 NOPR, NEEA recommended that DOE
expand the scope of CWAF coverage to include 3-phase units with a
capacity less than 225,000 Btu/h. NEEA asserted that failing to do so
would leave a significant portion of the CWAF market unregulated, and
the commenter noted that DOE has recently proposed closing a similar
regulatory gap for 3-phase small commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps and variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps
with cooling capacities less than 65,000 btu/h. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 8)
In response, DOE notes that NEEA made the same recommendation in a
comment submitted in response to a notice of proposed determination
(``NOPD'') for CWAF energy conservation standards that was published in
the Federal Register on April 26, 2022 (April 2022 NOPD). 87 FR 24455
(See Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042, comment 34 at p. 6)
Subsequently, in a final determination published in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2022 (December 2022 Final Determination), DOE
declined to
[[Page 36222]]
amend the CWAF definition to include three-phase furnaces with
capacities less than 225,000 Btu/h due to the limited potential to
achieve energy savings from doing so. 87 FR 78821, 78826. DOE maintains
its position from the December 2022 Final Determination that such
equipment represents a small portion of the overall CWAF market, which
at present does not provide an opportunity for significant energy
savings.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, prior to the amendments adopted in this final rule,
DOE incorporated 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. Updated versions of
each of these test standards have been published since they were
incorporated into the DOE 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 (update to ANSI Z21.47-2016), and ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 103-2022 \6\ (update to ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The February 2022 TP NOPR proposed to incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017; however, in 2022, ASHRAE published a
more recent version of the standard, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE noted several differences between
versions of the industry standards incorporated by reference at that
time and the more recent versions of the industry standards and sought
comment on these changes. 87 FR 10726, 10730-10735 (Feb. 25, 2022).
Stakeholder comments in response these proposals in the February 2022
NOPR are discussed in the following sections. In response to the
updates to the relevant industry standards, DOE is amending 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 103-2022.
As discussed, prior to the effective date of the amendments adopted
in this final rule, the DOE test procedure for CWAFs was specified in
10 CFR 431.76. In this final rule, DOE is reorganizing the CWAF test
procedures into two appendixes to subpart D of 10 CFR part 431:
appendix A (using the current TE metric) and appendix B (using the new
TE2 metric). DOE is reorganizing the test procedures in this way
because, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is
establishing appendix B for determining the TE2. In contrast, the
establishment of appendix A is editorial and for reorganization
purposes. DOE has determined that creating separate appendixes for the
determination of the two different metrics would help clarify which
appendix corresponds to which metric. Relevant to both appendices, DOE
is incorporating by reference the industry standards, as discussed in
the following sections.
1. UL 727
The CWAF test procedure, prior to the amendments adopted in this
final rule, required 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 February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the test procedure
to reference UL 727-2018. 87 FR 10726, 10731 (Feb. 25, 2022).
Additionally, DOE proposed to explicitly identify the provisions of UL
727-2018 that are applicable to the DOE test procedure for CWAFs,
because DOE tentatively determined that the scope section of UL 727-
2018 is not applicable since the scope of the DOE test procedure is
defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a). Id.
The February 2022 NOPR also discussed that UL 727-2018 has
different language pertaining to temperature measurements and using
potentiometers and thermocouples, and it also incorporates different
ANSI references regarding these topics as compared to UL 727-2006. DOE
tentatively determined that there was not sufficient evidence to
indicate that the updates in UL 727-2018 would not meet the
requirements of EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3); therefore, DOE
proposed to also incorporate by reference the updated ANSI standard
(i.e., ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17) referenced by UL 727-2018. 87 FR 10726,
10732 (Feb. 25, 2022).
Finally, in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE discussed that UL 727-2018
references NFPA 97M, ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys,
Gas Vents and Heat Producing Appliances'' (NFPA 97M) for definitions of
the terms ``combustible'' and ``noncombustible'' but does not specify
which version of NFPA 97M. DOE tentatively concluded that NFPA 97M is
an outdated standard and that NFPA 97-2003, ``Standard Glossary of
Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances''
(NFPA 97-2003) should be referenced for these definitions instead.
Therefore, DOE proposed to replace references to NFPA 97M in UL 727-
2018 with references to NFPA 97-2003. Id.
DOE received comments from Daikin, Carrier, and AHRI supporting the
proposal to reference NFPA 97-2003 rather than NFPA 97M. (Daikin, No.
25 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 22 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17 at p. 2) DOE did not
receive any comments in response to the proposals related to
incorporating by reference UL 727-2018.
For the reasons summarized in this document and discussed in the
February 2022 NOPR, DOE is amending the DOE test procedure to
incorporate by reference UL 727-2018, as well as incorporating the
additional industry standards related to UL 727-2018.
2. HI BTS and AHRI 1500
Prior to the amendments adopted in this final rule, DOE's test
procedure for oil-fired CWAFs referenced 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). (See
10 CFR 431.76(c)(2) and (e)(2) in effect as of January 1, 2022.) DOE's
test procedure included these provisions because DOE 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
TE. Therefore, DOE 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).
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE explained that in 2015, HI BTS-2000
was replaced with AHRI 1500-2015. 87 FR 10726, 10732 (Feb. 25, 2022).
The February 2022 NOPR also discussed that the DOE test procedure
references fuel oil analysis requirements in HI BTS-2000 and that the
fuel oil analysis requirements are different in AHRI 1500-2015. DOE
tentatively determined that the differences would not impact the
performance of a CWAF under test because the fuel oil analysis
requirements in AHRI 1500-2015 are essentially equivalent to those in
HI BTS-2000. As a result, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI
1500-2015, including its fuel oil analysis specifications. 87 FR 10726,
10733 (Feb. 25, 2022).
In addition, in the February 2022 NOPR 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
[[Page 36223]]
oil must be the measured CO2,\7\ while 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. 87 FR 10726, 10733 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE 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. As
such, DOE proposed to adopt the optional method specified in AHRI 1500-
2015 that allows for calculation CO2 using a measured
O2 value and requested comment on this proposal. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76(d) also states that
CO2 must be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI supported the proposal to adopt the optional method specified
in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculation CO2 using a
measured O2 value. (AHRI, No. 17 at p. 2) DOE did not
receive any other comments related to its proposal to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1500-2015. Therefore, for the reasons discussed here and
in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE is adopting the proposals related to
this topic made in the February 2022 NOPR.
3. ANSI Z21.47
Prior to the amendments adopted in this final rule, the CWAF test
procedure required 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).
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to replace the
incorporation by reference of ANSI Z21.47-2012 with ANSI Z21.47-2021.
87 FR 10726, 10734 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE explained in the February 2022
NOPR that all of the differences it had identified between the two
versions of the standard were non-substantive and would not impact the
test method or result. Id. However, DOE also noted that ANSI Z21.47-
2012 requires burner operating characteristics tests to be conducted
with test gas G (i.e., butane-air), while ANSI Z21.47-2021 allows
testing for premix burners to be done with test gas H (i.e., propane-
air) instead of test gas G at the manufacturer's option. In the
February 2022 NOPR, DOE stated that the burner operating
characteristics tests (including which test gas is used for them) do
not affect the TE measurement of a CWAF and requested 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.
Id.
Lennox, Daikin, Carrier, and AHRI stated that section 5.4a of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 is used for safety certification testing, and is unrelated
to TE, and, therefore, recommended DOE should not reference this
section. (Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3; Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2; Carrier, No.
22 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 17 at p. 2) Rheem also stated that the thermal
efficiency test is not affected by the burner operating characteristics
test. (Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 11) DOE received
no other comments related to its proposal to incorporate by reference
ANSI Z21.47-2021.
For the reasons discussed here and in the February 2022 NOPR, DOE
is amending the test procedure for CWAFs to replace the incorporation
by reference of ANSI Z21.47-2012 with ANSI Z21.47-2021. In addition,
DOE agrees with stakeholders that section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 does
not impact TE, and, therefore, does not need to be referenced in the
DOE test procedure for CWAFs. As such, DOE is not including reference
to this section in the DOE test procedure.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
Prior to adoption of the amendments in this final rule, DOE's test
procedure for gas-fired condensing CWAFs referenced ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
2007. In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the test
procedure by removing the reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 and to
instead reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, having determined that the only
differences between the standards in the sections utilized by the CWAF
test method were editorial in nature. 87 FR 10726, 10735. An updated
version of ANSI/ASHRAE 103, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022, has since been
released. DOE reviewed ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022 and determined that, for
the sections utilized in the test methods for CWAFs, there is no
difference between the two versions of the standard.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to its proposal to
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained previously and because DOE
has found there is no difference between ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 103-2022 in the sections utilized for the CWAFs test procedure,
DOE is amending the test procedures for CWAFs to incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022.
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.\8\ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE 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. 87 FR 10726, 10735 (Feb. 25, 2022).
Therefore, DOE proposed to account for these factors by establishing a
new test procedure and metric for CWAFs, termed TE2. DOE proposed to
establish appendix A to subpart D of 10 CFR part 431 as the test method
for calculating TE and to establish a new appendix B to subpart D of 10
CFR part 431, which would contain the new test method for TE2. The
proposed test procedure at appendix B 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. 87 FR
10726, 10735-10737 (Feb. 25, 2022). Additionally, DOE proposed that
manufacturers would be permitted to make voluntary representations
using TE2, and that mandatory use of the TE2 test procedure
[[Page 36224]]
would be required at such time as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such
standards. 87 FR 10726, 10737.
DOE received several comments supporting DOE's proposed test
procedure for TE2 in the February 2022 NOPR. NYSERDA generally
supported DOE's efforts to establish the TE2 metric because it will
improve representativeness of CWAF field performance. (NYSERDA, No. 16
at p. 2) The Joint Advocates supported DOE's proposal to establish the
TE2 metric, noting that the current TE metric only accounts for flue
losses, which provides little incentive to manufacturers to adopt
technologies that impact efficiency in the field, and not just TE. The
Joint Advocates, therefore, stated that the TE2 metric would better
reflect a representative average use cycle and would encourage design
changes that would reduce energy consumption. (Joint Advocates, No. 21
at p. 1)
DOE also received several comments opposing the proposed test
procedure for TE2. Lennox stated that the proposed new TE2 efficiency
metric and methodology is a significant change that would significantly
increase the test burden, with the commenter asserting that DOE has not
provided supporting data that would justify these changes. Lennox
argued that introducing such changes at the NOPR stage did not allow
stakeholders sufficient time to fully evaluate their impacts and
provide comment. Lennox noted that in standards rulemakings, DOE has
declined to adopt or propose more-stringent standards due to lack of
clear and convincing evidence that standards would be economically
justified, and the commenter asserted that in their review of current
CWAF test procedure and standards rulemakings, DOE has not provided
clear and convincing evidence to establish the TE2 metric. Therefore,
Lennox recommended that DOE should limit its test procedure amendments
to those related to TE; otherwise, if DOE continues to pursue TE2, the
commenter argued that DOE should revert back to the RFI stage so as to
allow for more stakeholder engagement regarding the proposals in the
TE2 metric. Lennox also argued against adoption of the TE2 metric
because of the associated cumulative regulatory burden. (Lennox, No. 19
at pp. 1-2) AHRI opposed adoption of the TE2 test procedure and metric
because there was no reference to such a proposal for a new metric or
any form of part-load testing in the May 2020 RFI and because DOE
failed to include key stakeholders in the development of TE2. In
addition, the commenter stated that there is not sufficient data or
justification indicating that such a change to the metric would result
in any additional energy savings. AHRI stated that the proposal to
adopt the TE2 metric is premature, and that if DOE wishes to do so, DOE
should go back to the RFI stage, conduct tests, and release data
showing the new test procedure is significantly more representative
than the current test procedure. AHRI also argued that the proposed TE2
metric is not economically justified, and that if DOE were to adopt
energy conservation standards based on such a metric, a crosswalk would
run the risk of inadvertently pushing compliant units out of the market
to produce a standard that can only be met through use of condensing
technology. Therefore, AHRI urged DOE to continue using the current TE
metric. (AHRI, No. 17 at pp. 2-3) Daikin agreed with AHRI on this
issue. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2) AGA and APGA stated that while they are
supportive of AHRI's comments overall, they wish to reiterate that they
do not support DOE adopting the TE2 metric because it is not clear that
it is more representative than the existing DOE test procedure, and
because there is no evidence to support that the proposed TE2 test
procedure would result in a significant change in energy savings. AGA
and APGA also expressed concern that adopting energy conservation
standards based on the TE2 metric would result in a standard that could
only be met through use of condensing technology. (AGA and APGA, No. 23
at p. 2) Carrier acknowledged that including jacket loss and part load
operation in the thermal efficiency metric would create a more
representative metric but asserted that more investigation and analysis
needs to be completed before doing so. (Carrier, No. 22 at p. 2)
In response, DOE notes that the TE metric only accounts for flue
losses as measured while the CWAF is operating at its maximum input
rate. Through testing of other similar appliances (e.g., consumer
furnaces), DOE has found that the efficiency can vary when the unit
operates at different fuel input rates; hence, test methods for such
appliances require testing at multiple fuel input rates. Therefore, DOE
concludes that including more than one fuel input rate will improve
representativeness of CWAF energy efficiency as compared to only
testing at the maximum input rate, since it will capture performance at
additional operating points. Regarding jacket losses, DOE has found
that CWAFs are often installed outside, and as a result, jacket losses
can contribute significantly to overall equipment energy use. Thus, DOE
concludes that accounting for jacket losses results in a metric that is
more representative of CWAF performance than a metric that ignores such
losses. Further, DOE notes that the methods proposed for determining
TE2, which require testing to determine jacket loss and TE, are already
in use in either industry standards (e.g., ANSI Z21.47) or DOE's own
test method for CWAFs. Therefore, manufacturers should be familiar with
the methods of testing such that reverting to an RFI would not be
necessary to provide time for additional input. While DOE recognizes
that additional testing at the minimum input rate and for jacket loss
would increase test burden, which is discussed in more detail in
section III.G, of this document, DOE has concluded that the benefit of
the increased representativeness offsets the additional test burden.
Additionally, DOE would make clear that representations using the TE2
metric are not mandatory until such time as compliance with a standard
denominated in terms of the TE2 metric is required, should DOE adopt
such a standard. In this rulemaking, DOE is not amending standards to
be based on TE2; rather, DOE is making available an optional test
method, should manufacturers wish to make representations of efficiency
using a more comprehensive metric. If, in a future energy conservation
standards rulemaking, DOE considers whether to adopt an energy
conservation standard based on the TE2 metric, DOE would further weigh
the benefits and burdens of doing so at that time, including the
potential additional energy savings that could be achieved through use
of TE2 as the regulatory metric as compared to TE and whether there is
economic justification for doing so. Based on these considerations, DOE
has determined to adopt the proposals in the February 2022 NOPR
regarding establishing TE2 and appendix B. The following sections
discuss the different components of TE2 (i.e., jacket loss and part-
load operation) and specific comments from interested parties on those
topics in more detail.
1. Jacket Loss
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt section 5.40 of
ANSI Z21.47-2021 for the purpose of measuring jacket loss for the TE2
metric. 87 FR 10726, 10737 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE also proposed to
incorporate the jacket loss into the TE2 metric by subtracting it
(along with flue losses) from 100 percent after applying a jacket loss
factor to account for installation
[[Page 36225]]
location. DOE proposed to apply a jacket loss factor of 1.7 for CWAFs
designed for indoor installation in an unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion system), 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), or 0 for CWAFs designed for
installation indoors within a heated space, which is consistent with
the values found in ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. Id. DOE received multiple
comments regarding the proposed jacket loss test procedure to be used
in determining TE2.
NEEA, the CA IOUs, and the CEC generally supported DOE's proposals
to include jacket loss in the TE2 metric. (NEEA, No. 24, at p. 1; CA
IOUs, No. 20, at p. 1; CEC, No. 18, at p. 2) The CA IOUs and the CEC
also specifically noted that the jacket loss factors are appropriate.
(CA IOUs, No. 20, at p. 1; CEC, No. 18, at p. 2)
Daikin, Carrier, and AHRI generally opposed DOE's proposal to
include jacket loss in the TE2 metric. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2; Carrier
No. 22 at pp. 2-3; AHRI No. 17 at p. 3) More specifically, Daikin
stated that the burden for conducting a jacket loss test is excessive
and is duplicative given that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 already requires a
maximum jacket loss of 0.75 percent. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2) Carrier
also stated that the jacket loss test, in particular the setup and data
acquisition, creates additional burden on manufacturers, and that this
increases with the size of the unit being tested. (Carrier No. 22 at
pp. 2-3) Additionally, Carrier stated that more clarity is needed on
how to properly run the test, as the industry has several methods to
conduct it. (Id.) Carrier stated that while other equipment includes
jacket loss in their calculation of efficiency (e.g., residential
furnaces and AFUE), it is hard to scale this to CWAFs. Carrier also
noted that with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 limiting jacket loss to 0.75
percent, many large CWAFs may be very close to this value.
Additionally, Carrier stated that including the 3.3 factor for
weatherized equipment creates a sizeable impact to the thermal
efficiency, and that if a future energy conservation standard for TE2
is not set correctly, it would require products to operate in a range
that condensing may occur. (Id.) AHRI stated that jacket losses are
measured on the furnace jacket, not on the rooftop unit (RTU)
jacket,\9\ and that furnace jackets are typically embedded far inside
the RTU, which requires the CUAC/HP to be taken apart in order to reach
the CWAF jacket. AHRI stated that this is an extremely burdensome task,
and that manufacturers are already required to comply with ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, which requires jacket loss to be less than 0.75 percent
(although AHRI also noted that only the worst-case models are tested).
AHRI also stated that the additional granularity of a thermal
efficiency rating that incorporates jacket loss would be negligible.
(AHRI No. 17 at p. 3 and 5) Rheem stated that jacket losses have to be
below 1.5 percent for equipment sold in Canada and below 0.75 percent
for equipment to comply with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (Rheem, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 24)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RTUs are packaged units that can include both a commercial
unitary air conditioner (CUAC) and a CWAF and are designed for
installation on the rooftop of commercial buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response, DOE recognizes that performing an additional test to
determine the jacket loss of a CWAF is more burdensome than not testing
for jacket loss; however, as previously discussed, DOE has concluded
that including jacket loss in the TE2 metric will provide a more
representative measure of energy efficiency. DOE disagrees with AHRI
that jacket losses would be negligible, as the percentage loss is
included directly in the TE2 calculation. As noted by Carrier, many
CWAFs may be close to the 0.75 percent requirement. Because the jacket
loss percentage is multiplied by the jacket loss factor, for
weatherized CWAFs designed to be installed outdoors (which represent
the majority of CWAFs on the market and which have a jacket loss factor
of 3.3) a jacket loss of 0.75 percent could result in a difference in
TE2 of nearly 2.5 percent as compared to a unit with negligible jacket
losses, which DOE considers significant.
Regarding Carrier's concerns that burden increases with the size of
the unit, DOE acknowledges that additional testing burden would be
incurred if manufacturers decide to test according to TE2, and may
increase more significantly for larger units. However, DOE has
concluded that this burden would be outweighed by the anticipated
improvement in representativeness. DOE also notes that CWAFs are
eligible to use alternative efficiency determination methods (AEDMs,),
which are typically used by manufacturers to mitigate burden,
especially for testing larger commercial equipment. Further discussion
of the testing burden posed by TE2 is included in section III.G. of
this document.
Although DOE recognizes that TE2 testing would be more burdensome
as compared to TE, DOE has concluded that the TE2 test method is not
unduly burdensome. Further discussion of the cost of testing is
included in section III.G of this document. Additionally, DOE notes
that the use of TE2 is optional at this time, and this final rule does
not amend or otherwise impact the energy conservation standards for
CWAFs. If DOE should propose amended standards in the future
denominated in terms of the TE2 metric, DOE would consider concerns
regarding condensing operation at that time. Lastly, DOE agrees with
Carrier that additional clarity regarding how to conduct the test is
warranted. In particular, DOE notes that section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-
2021 is not specific as to what constitutes the ``jacket.'' Therefore,
DOE clarifies that it applies the term as defined by the CSA Group
standard CSA P.8-2022, ``Thermal Efficiencies of Industrial and
Commercial Gas-Fired Package Furnaces.'' CSA P.8-2022 defines the
jacket as the surfaces surrounding the heating section of the furnace.
The jacket includes all surfaces separating the heating section from
the supply air, outside air, or condenser section, including the bottom
surface separating the heating section from the basepan. DOE has
included a description of the jacket in accordance with this definition
in section 1.2 of appendix B.
2. Part-Load Performance
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that, for CWAFs
with two-stage or modulating burners, the flue loss be determined at
both the maximum and minimum input rates on the nameplate of the unit
and that the jacket loss be determined at the maximum input rate and
optionally at the minimum input rate. If the jacket loss were
determined only at the maximum input rate, DOE proposed to assign an
equivalent value at the minimum input rate. DOE proposed that 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, which reflects an average use case
of 50 percent of the time operating at full load and 50 percent of the
time operating at part-load. 87 FR 10726, 10738 (Feb. 25, 2022).
In response to the February 2022 NOPR, AHRI stated that unlike for
air-conditioning equipment, the range in variability in performance
between part-load and full-load is small and that adding part-load
performance into the
[[Page 36226]]
measurement of CWAF performance would not add to market clarity,
especially given the burden of retesting all CWAFs on the market to
assess performance according to such a test procedure. (AHRI, No. 17 at
pp. 3-4)
DOE also received comments from several stakeholders supporting the
inclusion of part-load performance in TE2. Specifically, NEEA supported
the inclusion of part-load operation in the proposed TE2 metric and
noted that they have observed cases where CWAFs have had reduced
efficiency at part-load when compared to full-load. Therefore, NEEA
concluded that including part-load efficiency in TE2 will create a more
representative efficiency metric. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 6) The CA IOUs
supported DOE's efforts to incorporate part-load operation within the
TE2 metric and agreed with DOEs assertion in the February 2022 NOPR
that most CWAFs have two or more stages of heating, that CWAFs spend a
substantial time operating in part-load, and that including part-load
performance in a TE2 metric would increase representativeness. (CA
IOUs, No. 20 at pp. 1-2) The CEC supported including part-load
performance in the TE2 metric and noted that CWAFs spend a large
percentage of time in part-load operation. (CEC, No. 18 at p. 2)
Carrier stated that part-load performance should be part of the CWAF
test procedure. (Carrier, No. 22 at pp. 3-4)
As discussed previously, DOE has observed during testing of similar
products that efficiency can differ at full load as compared to part
load and has concluded that adding testing during part-load operation
would improve representativeness as compared to a test method that only
requires operation at the maximum input. Therefore, DOE is adopting
part-load testing in the TE2 metric, as initially proposed in the
February 2022 NOPR. Regarding the need to re-test CWAFs currently rated
to the TE metric, DOE notes that testing to determine TE2 would not be
required until the compliance date of any energy conservation standards
based on that metric. However, DOE concludes that the improved
representativeness of the TE2 metric would outweigh the additional test
burden.
DOE also received several comments regarding the proposal to weight
both full-load and part-load operation at 50 percent when calculating
TE2.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to continue to evaluate what full-load
and part-load weighting factors would improve representativeness of an
average use cycle; however, the CA IOUs stated that they do not oppose
DOE's proposal to use 50 percent weighting factors, given the lack of
national data on such full-load and part-load performance. (CA IOUs,
No. 20 at p. 2) The CEC supported the DOE's proposal to equally weight
full-load and part-load operation, but also stated that DOE should
continue to evaluate the average use cycle of CWAFs. (CEC, No. 18 at p.
2)
NEEA recommended DOE reconsider the proposed weighting of low and
high fire in the TE2 metric. NEEA presented a figure showing the
modeled proportion of time at high fire and low fire for three
locations in Canada (Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto) and two building
types (retail and warehouse). The commenter stated that modeling has
shown that, in colder North American climate zones (5A, 6A, and 7), the
ratio of high fire to low fire is only close to 50/50 for warehouses in
these cold climates, but for other use types, the ratio was closer to
30 percent at low fire and 70 percent at high fire. NEEA stated that
because the U.S. generally has warmer climate zones than Canada, NEEA
would expect increased part-load operation in the U.S., and, therefore,
it argued that a 50/50 weighting would not be representative of CWAFs
in the U.S. (NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 6-7)
The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to further consider alternative
weighting factors for full-load and part-load operation that they argue
may be more representative of average use. The Joint Advocates also
noted that the February 2022 NOPR refers to an estimate from NEEA that
CWAFs spend about 10 to 20 percent of their time operating at full
load, but that DOE did not use that estimate because the Department
tentatively determined that the climate regions from which the estimate
was derived were not representative of the U.S. The Joint Advocates
urged DOE to reconsider the NEEA estimate because they understand that
while total operating hours will vary significantly based on climate
region, the percentage of time spent at full load is relatively
constant across climate regions. (Joint Advocates, No. 21 at p. 2)
Rheem stated that it is not appropriate to average the maximum and
minimum thermal efficiencies and noted that in ANSI/ASHRAE 103 (i.e.,
the ASHRAE test method for consumer furnaces) there is a method for
determining the weightings, and the unit does not run at the maximum
input very often. Rheem suggested that the minimum input rate should be
weighted more than the maximum input rate. (Rheem, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 15 at pp. 27-28) Daikin also stated that 50 percent
weighting factors for full-load and part-load performance are not
appropriate. Further, Daikin stated that the approach to weighting
full-load and part-load operation in ANSI/ASHRAE 103 cannot be used for
CWAFs because it was generated for residential products and the
operational profile of commercial products is radically different.
(Daikin, No. 25 at p. 2) Carrier commented that time spent at part-load
is much longer than full-load, and, therefore, DOE's proposed 50
percent weighting factor is not appropriate. Carrier recommended that
more investigation and analysis should be performed to determine
appropriate weighting factors that account for all types of furnaces
(i.e., two-stage, multi-stage, and modulating). (Carrier, No. 22 at pp.
3-4) AHRI also stated that the 50 percent weighting factors proposed by
DOE in the February 2022 NOPR are not representative. (AHRI, No. 17 at
p. 4)
In response, DOE notes that the modeling presented by NEEA shows
that in the three regions in Canada, the percentage of time a CWAF
could operate at high fire versus low fire varied greatly, with CWAFs
in some applications operating as little as approximately 25 percent of
time in high fire (and 75 percent in low fire), while CWAFs in other
applications were modeled to operate more than 70 percent of time in
high fire (and 30 percent in low fire). Warehouses in all three
locations were modeled to operate in high fire over 50 percent of the
time, while retail buildings in all three locations were modeled to
operate in high fire less than 50 percent of the time. Although NEEA
claimed that the warmer climate in the U.S. would result in less time
operating at full load, that is not necessarily the case as CWAFs in
the U.S. would likely be sized differently from those in Canada due to
the reduced heating loads. As noted by the Joint Advocates, while total
operating hours will vary significantly based on climate region, the
percentage of time spent at full load could remain relatively constant
across climate regions. Although several commenters asserted that
weighting equally at 50 percent in full-load and in part-load is not
representative, no other commenters presented alternative data, nor is
DOE aware of any data that would be useful to better characterize the
appropriate weighting factors. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is
adopting a calculation method that weights full-load and part-load
operation equally. Should DOE become aware of any new data regarding
time spent operating at each input rate or data specific to different
furnace types in the future, DOE could consider
[[Page 36227]]
revising the calculation accordingly in a subsequent rulemaking.
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE tentatively determined not to
account for electrical energy consumption of CWAF auxiliary power
components (e.g., controls and/or combustion blowers/fans) or the
supply air fan in the CWAF test procedure. 87 FR 10726, 10739 (Feb. 25,
2022). Specifically, regarding supply fan energy consumption, DOE noted
that CWAFs are typically installed within the same cabinet as a CUAC
and that this energy is generally accounted for in the current CUAC
test procedure, although furnace-only operation hours are not included.
As such, DOE tentatively determined that energy consumption during
furnace-only operation hours would be better addressed in a future
amendment to the CUAC test procedure. Id. Regarding auxiliary power
consumption, DOE tentatively determined that including such power
consumption into a CWAF performance metric would have a negligible
impact on the measured energy efficiency of a CWAF. Id.
In response to the February 2022 NOPR, NYSERDA encouraged DOE to
measure fan energy consumption during furnace-only operation in the
CWAF test procedure. (NYSERDA, No. 16 at p. 2) NEEA also recommended
that DOE account for electricity consumption used in a CUAC, including
fan and auxiliary energy use, that relates to CWAF energy consumption.
In relation to DOE's tentative determination in the February 2022 NOPR
that such energy consumption would be better addressed in a future
amendment to the CUAC test procedure, NEEA stated such an approach
would likely leave out the portion of the hours during the year where
fan energy is consumed when only the CWAF is operating. NEEA stated
that it understands DOE's desire for fan energy to ``be captured in a
single test procedure,'' but the commenter argued that this goal is not
achievable when cooling and heating efficiencies are regulated
separately and also not achievable in a market as diverse as that for
commercial HVAC. Additionally, NEEA mentioned that because fan and
other auxiliary electrical end uses are integral to the function of any
CWAF, it is critical than any CWAF TP and performance metric account
for them. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 4)
After carefully considering these comments, DOE maintains its
position presented in February 2022 NOPR that, at present, integrating
the auxiliary electrical energy consumption into the efficiency metric
for CWAF would result in negligible impact. Further, DOE also maintains
that the fan efficiency is better accounted for in a single test method
that addresses all fan energy consumption. Accordingly, DOE is
proposing to address the supply air fan energy use for CWAFs, including
during operation in heating-only mode, in the ongoing CUACs test
procedure rulemaking. Therefore, DOE is not adopting measures of
auxiliary electrical energy use or the electrical energy use of the
supply air fan in this final rule.
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and Clarifications
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE used the terms ``vent hoods,''
``vent pipes,'' and ``flue outlets'' to describe the section of a CWAF
that carries the flue gas away from the unit. DOE received a comment
from AAON recommending DOE use the term ``flue outlets,'' because it is
the most accurate way to describe those components. (AAON, No. 14 at p.
1) In response, DOE has determined it appropriate to use only the term
``flue outlet(s)'' in order to prevent confusion associated with using
multiple terms to refer to the same outlet. As such, DOE will use the
term ``flue outlet(s)'' in this final rule, as well as in appendix A
and appendix B.
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Multiple Flue Outlets
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to add instructions to
clarify the test method for models with multiple flue outlets. 87 FR
10726, 10740 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE proposed that measurements used to
calculate TE (e.g., flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses), be made separately for each flue outlet, and that they are
weighted proportionally to the size of each flue outlet when
calculating flue loss. Further, DOE proposed that test requirements,
such as determining when equilibrium conditions occur based on the flue
gas temperature, are determined based these weighted measurements. DOE
noted that this proposal is predicated on the assumption that the
amount (i.e., mass flow) of flue exhaust exiting each flue outlet is
proportional to the outlet size. DOE recognized that ``size'' of the
flue outlet may be measured in various ways, and, therefore, the
Department proposed to specify that flue outlet size would be
determined by calculating the outlet face area. DOE sought comments on
these proposals. Id.
Lennox stated that the size of the flue outlet may not be
representative of the amount of flue exhaust passing through the flue
outlet, and that DOE should consider relying on the supplemental
testing instructions or review the input capacity for each heating
section as the weighted average instead of the cross-sectional area of
the flue outlet. (Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3) AHRI and Carrier supported
clarifying how to test units with multiple flue outlets but recommended
that the measurement and performance rating for each flue outlet should
be based on input rating of each furnace module instead of the size of
the flue outlet. (AHRI, No. 17 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 22 at p. 4)
Based on these comments DOE understands that the flue outlet size
may not directly correspond to the mass flow of flue gases exiting from
that outlet. Consequently, DOE agrees that the fuel input rating for
each furnace module would be a better indicator of the flue gases
exiting the outlet for that specific module. Therefore, DOE amends the
test procedure to clarify that for units with multiple flue gas
outlets, the measurements used to calculate TE (e.g., flue gas
temperature, CO2 in flue gasses) are to be made separately
for each flue outlet, and are to be weighted proportionally to the
input capacity associated with the furnace module.
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space Limitations
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE noted that section 5.16 of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 specifies measuring the flue gas temperature 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. 87 FR
10726, 10740 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE proposed to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured using nine individual thermocouples when
the flue outlet is larger than 2 inches in diameter and may optionally
be measured using five individual thermocouples when the flue outlet is
2 inches or smaller in diameter, which DOE noted aligns with the
approach in ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. Id. at 87 FR 10741.
AAON stated that flue outlet geometry in CWAFs can vary in shape
and that the diagram referenced in ANSI/ASHRAE 103 only accounts for a
circular geometry. Consequently, AAON recommended that the number
thermocouples needed for testing should be determined by the cross-
[[Page 36228]]
sectional area of the flue outlet. (AAON, No. 14 at p. 1) Similarly,
Lennox noted that not all flue outlets are round, and, therefore, the
commenter suggested that the number of thermocouples used during the
test should be determined using the face area of the flue outlet.
(Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3) Carrier agreed that fewer thermocouples should
be used for units with smaller flue outlets, but also recommended the
determination be based on cross-sectional face area, not diameter,
since flue outlets are not always circular. (Carrier, No. 22 at p. 4)
AHRI supported DOE's proposal that the number of thermocouples used be
dependent on the flue outlet size; however, similar to other
commenters, AHRI recommend that DOE base the determination of how many
thermocouples to use on the cross-sectional area of the outlet, rather
than the diameter. AHRI also further recommended DOE review and align
its provisions with the requirement outlined in Figure 10 of AHRI 103.
(AHRI, No. 17 at p. 4)
DOE agrees that the determination of the number of thermocouples
used in the flue outlet should be based on the area of the flue outlet,
rather than diameter, because some flue outlets may not be circular.
Therefore, DOE is adopting a modification to its February 2022 proposal
so that the optional allowance to use 5 thermocouples rather than 9 in
models with flue outlets that are 2 inches or less in diameter applies
based on the cross-sectional area of the flue outlet. For a circular
flue with a diameter of 2 inches, the area would be 3.14 square inches;
thus, DOE is amending the test procedure to allow optional use of 5
thermocouples when testing models with a flue outlet that has a cross
sectional area of 3.14 square inches or less.
3. Flue Loss Determination
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and section 5.40 of 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.\10\ If these conditions are met, either calculation method may
be used. In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that the
calculation method must be used when determining flue loss 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. 87 FR 10726,
10741 (Feb. 25, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 received comments from Daikin, Carrier, Lennox, Rheem, and AHRI
that supported this proposal, and received no other comments on this
topic. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 19 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 22
at p. 5; Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 21; AHRI, No.
17 at p. 4) Based on the previously discussed rationale, DOE has
determined that requiring the calculation method will help improve test
repeatability. As such, DOE is requiring that the calculation method,
not the nomograph method, from Annex I in ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used for
the determination of flue loss.
4. General Approach
In response to the February 2022 NOPR, DOE received several
comments regarding its general approach to the test method for CWAFs.
AGA and APGA recommend DOE consider implementing the
recommendations for the recent National Academies of Sciences
Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) on appliance standards rulemakings,
whether for test procedures or energy conservation standards. (AGA and
APGA, No. 23 at pp. 2-3)
Given that this is a test procedure rulemaking for which DOE must
meet specific statutory criteria as outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6314, the
recommendations in the NASEM report, which pertain specifically to the
processes by which DOE analyzes energy conservation standards, are not
applicable. DOE will consider this comment in a separate rulemaking
considering all covered product and covered equipment categories.
DOE also received comments from the Joint Advocates and NEEA
recommending that DOE consider a ``whole box'' approach for measuring
the performance of CWAFs, similar to the approach found in CSA P.8-
2022, ``Thermal Efficiencies of Industrial and Commercial Gas-fired
Package Furnaces.'' \11\ (Joint Advocates, No. 21 at pp. 1-2, NEEA, No.
24 at pp. 1-5) More specifically, the Joint Advocates and NEEA stated
that while they supported DOE's efforts to establish TE2, they
encouraged DOE to evaluate the potential use of CSA P.8-2022. They
asserted that CSA P.8 would more accurately represent overall
efficiency of a CWAF because the new heating metric in that standard
(i.e., ``total heating season coefficient of performance'') calculates
the efficiency of a CWAF using a more holistic approach, by
incorporating factors such as burner efficiency, total enclosure heat
losses, fan energy consumption, and heat gains from heat recovery. Id.
Similarly, NYSERDA also encouraged DOE to consider any forthcoming
updates that may better measure the holistic energy use of CWAFs.
(NYSERDA, No. 16 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CSA P.8-2022 is available for purchase at:
www.csagroup.org/store/product/CSA%20P.8:22/. (Last accessed Jan.
31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section I.A of this document, 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. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) In this case, the industry test standards
referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are ANSI Z21.47 for gas-fired CWAFs
and UL 727 for oil-fired CWAFs. The test methods adopted in this final
rule incorporate by reference those industry standards, and are
generally consistent with and build upon those industry standards by
providing clarifications or other modifications, as necessary, to meet
the requirements of EPCA. DOE has determined that the test procedures
for CWAFs adopted in this final rule will produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency of CWAFs during a representative average use
cycle, are not unduly burdensome to conduct, as required by EPCA.
Further, DOE notes that the scope of CSA P.8-2022 indicates that the
standard is intended to provide ``cold climate'' performance criteria
that is representative of use in colder climates found in Canada and
other northern locations, which may not be representative of the U.S.
as a whole.
[[Page 36229]]
Therefore, DOE did not find it necessary to move to a test method that
uses the approach taken by CSA P.8-2022. In response to NYSERDA, DOE
will continue to monitor future applicable industry test standard
updates related to CWAFs.
F. Effective and Compliance Dates
The effective date for the adopted CWAFs test procedure amendments
is 30 days after the date of publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register.
Regarding the compliance date, EPCA prescribes that 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 for CWAFs, beginning 360 days
after the date of publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
To the extent the modified test procedure adopted in this final
rule is required only for the evaluation under updated CWAF energy
conservation standards (i.e., standards denominated in terms of the new
TE2 metric), compliance with the amended test procedure does not
require use of such modified test procedure provisions until the
compliance date of such updated standards, if adopted.
G. Test Procedure Costs
EPCA requires that the test procedures for CWAFs be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or
recognized by either AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) 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 an amended test procedure
would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3) related to
representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
In this final rule, DOE is amending the test procedure for CWAFs
for determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-date
versions of the industry test standards referenced in the DOE test
procedure, and by providing additional detail for the test setup for
models with multiple flue outlets and models with flue outlets having
space limitations. DOE has determined that these amendments to the test
procedure for determining TE would not be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct, and that the test procedures for this
equipment are consistent with the industry test procedure updates. DOE
has also determined that the 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
to conduct. DOE expects that the test procedure in appendix A for
determining TE will not increase testing costs.
DOE is also establishing a new metric for CWAFs, TE2, and a new
appendix B, which includes the test procedure for determining TE2. In
the February 2022 NOPR, DOE estimated that the additional test cost due
to the additional part-load test and jacket loss test required for the
TE2 metric would be $2,200, compared to the DOE test procedure using
the TE metric, which DOE estimated 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,\12\ DOE estimated the testing cost associated
with the newly proposed appendix B test procedure to be $12,800 per
basic model. 87 FR 10726, 10741-10742 (Feb. 25, 2022). DOE also noted
that in accordance with 10 CFR 429.41, CWAF manufacturers may elect to
use an AEDM to rate models for the TE2 metric, which significantly
reduces testing costs to industry. DOE estimated the per-manufacturer
cost to develop and validate an AEDM to determine TE2 for CWAF
equipment to be $17,300. DOE estimated a cost of $46 per basic model
for determining energy efficiency using a validated AEDM.\13\ 87 FR
10726, 10742 (Feb. 25, 2022). Additionally, DOE has determined that the
appendix B test procedure and TE2 calculation would alter the measured
energy efficiency of a CWAF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received multiple comments on the test cost and burden
associated with performing the TE2 test procedure. Rheem generally
stated that measuring jacket loss is very labor-intensive due to the
need to take apart the unit and presents a burden to manufacturers.
(Rheem, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at pp. 23-24) AHRI asserted
that there are external costs associated with this proposed test
procedure change that DOE has not accounted for, including bandwidth
limitations at laboratory facilities that would cause manufacturers to
test internally and which could delay testing of new units while
existing models are retested. (AHRI, No. 17 at p. 5) AHRI also asserted
that DOE did not accurately account for the cost of performing a jacket
loss test at full-load and part-load because determining compliance
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requires that only the worst-case unit in a
product line needs to be tested, but TE2 would require manufacturers to
run the jacket loss test twice every time a unit is tested. AHRI also
stated that there are no AEDMs currently available for TE2 and
developing an AEDM is extremely costly due to the number of variables
that need to be accounted for and modeled accurately (e.g., fan
capacity, cabinet geometry, variation in size of the heater, and the
inclusion of dampers, energy recovery ventilators (ERVs), and heat
recovery ventilators (HRVs) in the airflow path). AHRI also disagreed
with the Department's estimate that the associated rerating costs would
be approximately $17,400, because manufacturers will need to validate
any new AEDM by testing at least two (2) basic models, which will have
associated manufacturing and test costs. Instead, AHRI estimated that
the cost of the test samples alone will reach upwards of $30,000
(without accounting for the AEDM development cost or test time), and
that the test time must include a minimum of several days to set up for
each sample, with laboratory time being very expensive. (Id.) Daikin
supported AHRI's comments on this topic and added that testing cost and
burden will increase substantially if manufacturers must assess part-
load conditions and jacket loss. Daikin noted that if ambient
conditions must be controlled in psychometric rooms to conduct jacket
loss testing, it could impact availability of those test rooms for
other equipment such as commercial unitary air conditioners and heat
pumps. (Daikin, No. 25 at p. 3) Carrier stated that DOE underestimated
the cost to validate an AEDM, because CWAF sizes vary between 225,000
Btu/h and 2,000,000 Btu/h (which can lead to an extremely large
variation in cost). Carrier stated that to create an accurate
[[Page 36230]]
AEDM, a manufacturer would need to consider a ``worst case'' model, and
that this can cost upwards of $50,000. (Carrier, No. 22 at p. 5)
In response, DOE notes that the estimated cost of testing for TE2
presented in the February 2022 NOPR is based on actual price quotations
from third-party laboratories. Additionally, the estimated cost to
develop an AEDM reflects 80 hours to develop the AEDM based on existing
simulation tools, plus an additional 16 hours to validate the AEDM at a
rate of $46 per hour, plus the cost to conduct the test on two units as
required by 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv). DOE recognizes that depending on
each individual manufacturer's approach to testing and rating their
models (whether based on actual testing, AEDMs, or a combination of
approaches) and the number of models they would need to rate with TE2,
test costs could vary significantly. DOE's estimates are intended to
represent the typical or most likely costs given the various pathways
available for rating TE2. However, DOE recognizes that the costs could
be higher. Although TE2 testing will be cost more than the current TE
test method due to the need to perform jacket loss testing and testing
at the minimum input capacity, DOE has concluded that the additional
costs are not unduly burdensome and are justified due to the improved
representativeness of TE2 as compared to TE. Further, because there is
no requirement to make representations with TE2 at this time, DOE does
not view laboratory bandwidth limitations as a significant issue.
However, if DOE were to transition to standards based on the TE2 metric
in the future, which would require manufacturers to make
representations of TE2, DOE notes that it would provide a lead time
before compliance is required, consistent with the requirements of
EPCA,\14\ which should alleviate any laboratory bandwidth issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv), if DOE amends standards
pursuant to a six-year-lookback review initiated under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i), amended standards apply a minimum of three years
after publication of the amended standards. Under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(D)(i), if DOE amends standards pursuant to an amendment
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels, amended standards apply a minimum of
2 years after the effective date of the minimum energy efficiency
requirement in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,''
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O.
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan.
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,''
88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent
permitted by law, to: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt;
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such techniques may
include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result
from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For
the reasons stated in the preamble, this final regulatory action is
consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this final regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule 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 (August 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. DOE reviewed this final rule under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003.
On February 25, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (February 2022 NOPR) proposing to update
the references in the Federal test procedure to the most recent version
of the relevant industry test procedures as they relate to CWAFs, as
well as to adopt a new TE2 metric. Specifically, DOE proposed to adopt
two appendices to 10 CFR 431.76--appendix A for determining TE and
appendix B for determining TE2. The TE test method in appendix A is
similar to the current method for TE, with several clarifications and
updates to incorporate by reference the most recent versions of
appliable industry test standards. The TE2 test method in appendix B
builds upon the TE test method in appendix A, but also accounts for
jacket losses and operation at the minimum input rating.
As part of the February 2022 NOPR, DOE conducted its initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA). 87 FR 10726, 10742-10744 (Feb.
25, 2022). DOE used the Small Business Administration (SBA) small
business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as
small businesses, which are listed by North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\15\ The SBA considers a business entity
to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs
less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121.
CWAF manufacturers are classified under NAICS code 333415, ``Air-
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR
[[Page 36231]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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 Feb. 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE relied on publicly-available databases to identify potential
small businesses that manufacture equipment covered by this rulemaking.
DOE utilized the California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System (MAEDbS) \16\ and DOE's Certification
Compliance Database (CCD) \17\ to identify potential small businesses
that manufacture CWAFs covered by this rulemaking. 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. DOE
identified one small, domestic OEM for consideration. DOE used
subscription-based business information tools (e.g., Dun & Bradstreet
reports \18\) to determine headcount and revenue of the small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ MAEDbS can be accessed at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx (Last accessed Feb. 8, 2022).
\17\ Certified equipment in the CCD is 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).
\18\ The Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers subscription login is
accessible online at app.dnbhoovers.com/ (Last accessed Feb. 8,
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the February 2022 NOPR, DOE determined the one small
manufacturer had average annual revenues of approximately $3.3 million.
Additionally, DOE identified four basic models from the small
manufacturer. DOE estimated the re-rating costs for the manufacturer to
be approximately $17,400 when making use of AEDMs. The cost for this
small manufacturer to re-rate all basic models was estimated to be less
than 1 percent of annual revenue. DOE also estimated the re-rating cost
for the small manufacturer based on physical testing of all four models
based on third-party laboratory testing. Relying on pricing quotes from
third-party laboratories, DOE estimated costs of approximately $51,200
for the small business. The cost for this small manufacturer to re-rate
all basic models with physical testing was estimated to be less than
1.6 percent of annual revenue. 87 FR 10726, 10744 (Feb. 25, 2022).
DOE did not receive any comments on the number of small entities in
response to the February 2022 NOPR. As discussed in section III.G of
this document, DOE received several comments that suggested that the
February 2022 NOPR underestimated the cost of testing for TE2
generally. However, as discussed previously, the estimated cost of
testing for TE2 presented in the February 2022 NOPR is based on actual
price quotations from third-party laboratories. Additionally, the
estimated cost to develop an AEDM reflects 80 hours to develop the AEDM
based on existing simulation tools, plus an additional 16 hours to
validate the AEDM at a rate of $46 per hour, plus the cost to conduct
the test on two units as required by 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv). Although
DOE recognizes that each individual manufacturer's approach to testing
and rating their models (whether based on actual testing, AEDMs, or a
combination of approaches) could cause test costs to vary
significantly, DOE's estimates are intended to represent the typical or
most likely costs given the various pathways available for rating TE2,
and, therefore, DOE maintained its estimates from the February 2022
NOPR for this final rule.
On the basis of the de minimis compliance burden, DOE concludes and
certifies that the cost effects accruing from this test procedure final
rule would not have a ``significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities,'' and that the preparation of a FRFA is not
warranted. DOE will transmit a certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
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.
DOE is not amending the certification or reporting requirements for
CWAFs in this final rule. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to amend
the certification requirements and reporting for CWAFs under a separate
rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will
address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as
necessary.
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
DOE has analyzed this regulation in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA) and
DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). In this final
rule, DOE establishes 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 NEPA and DOE's
implementing regulations, because it is a rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule or regulation that does not change the
environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended.
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,
subpart D, appendix A, sections 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 (August 10,
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
[[Page 36232]]
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
examined this final rule and has determined that it will 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 final
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. 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,
this final 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 regulatory action resulting 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 www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this final
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 final rule will 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 regulation will 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 final 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 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 significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This 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
[[Page 36233]]
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. 95-91; 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 amendments to the Federal test procedure for CWAFs contained in
this final rule adopt testing methods contained in certain sections of
the following commercial standards: AHRI 1500-2015 (which in turn
references ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-
10), ANSI Z21.47-2021 (which in turn references ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974
(R2004)), ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022, and UL 727-2018 (which in turn
references ASTM E230/E230M-17 and NFPA 97-2003). 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 they
were developed in a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review). DOE has consulted with both the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has
received no comments objecting to their use.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the final rule is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
N. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the following
test standards:
AHRI 1500-2015 provides instruction for how to perform fuel oil
analysis and for how to calculate flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite
400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
www.ahrinet.org.
ANSI Z21.47-2021 provides instruction for how to test gas-fired
CWAFs.
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022 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.
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) is referenced by ANSI Z21.47-2021
and specifies thermocouple requirements for when testing gas-fired
CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022, and ANSI/ASME PTC
19.3-1974 (R2004), can be obtained the from the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY
10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at: www.webstore.ansi.org.
ASTM D240-09 is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains fuel
oil heating value requirements.
ASTM D396-14a is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains
general fuel oil requirements.
ASTM D4809-09a is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains
fuel oil hydrogen and carbon content requirements.
ASTM D5291-10 is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains fuel
oil density requirements.
ASTM E230/E230M-17 is referenced in UL 727-2018, and it specifies
thermocouple requirements for when testing oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-
10, and ASTM E230/E230M-17 can be obtained from ASTM International, 100
Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877)
909-2786 or online at: www.astm.org.
NFPA 97-2003 is referenced in UL 727-2018 and provides definitions
for the terms ``combustible'' and ``noncombustible.''
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained from the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-
7471, 1-800-344-3555 or online at: www.nfpa.org.
UL 727-2018 provides instruction for how to test oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc. (UL), 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062,
(847) 272-8800, or online at: www.standardscatalog.ul.com.
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
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 May 22,
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on May 23, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations 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
[[Page 36234]]
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.
(a) 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 incorporation by reference (IBR) 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, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, EE-5B, Washington, DC 20585, (202)
586-9127, [email protected], www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, visit: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html or email: [email protected]. The material may be
obtained from the sources in the following paragraphs of this section.
(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
online at: www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 (``AHRI 1500-2015''), Performance Rating of
Commercial Space Heating Boilers, ANSI-approved November 28, 2014; IBR
approved for appendix A to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212) 642-4900 or online at:
www.ansi.org.
(1) CSA/ANSI Z21.47:21, (``ANSI Z21.47-2021''), Gas-fired central
furnaces, ANSI-approved April 21, 2021; IBR approved for appendices A
and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(d) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc., 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree
Corners, Georgia 30092, (404) 636-8400, or online at: www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2022 (``ASHRAE 103-2022''), Method of Testing
for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces
and Boilers, approved January 10, 2022; IBR approved for appendix A to
this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) ASME. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Service Center,
22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007, (973) 882-1170, or
online at: www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), Supplement to ASME Performance
Test Codes: Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and Apparatus,
reaffirmed 2004; IBR approved for appendix A to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(f) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786, or online at:
www.astm.org/.
(1) ASTM D240-09, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter, approved July 1, 2009;
IBR approved for appendix A to this subpart.
(2) ASTM D396-14a, Standard Specification for Fuel Oils, approved
October 1, 2014; IBR approved for appendix A to this subpart.
(3) ASTM D4809-09a, Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method);
approved September 1, 2009; IBR approved for appendix A to this
subpart.
(4) ASTM D5291-10, Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants, approved May 1, 2010; IBR approved for appendix A to
this subpart.
(5) 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
appendix A to this subpart.
(g) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch
Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, 1-800-344-3555, or online at:
www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 97 (``NFPA 97-2003''), Standard Glossary of Terms Relating
to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances; copyright 2023; IBR
approved for appendix A to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(h) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or online at: 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
appendix A 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. Appendix A to subpart D of part 431 is added to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for
Measurement of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
(Thermal Efficiency)
Note: On and after May 28, 2024, 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 103-2022, UL 727-2018, or AHRI 1500-2015. On and
after July 3, 2023 and prior to May 28, 2024, manufacturers must
test commercial warm air furnaces in accordance with this appendix
or 10 CFR 431.76 as it appeared on January 1, 2023. DOE notes that,
because testing under this section is required as of May 28, 2024,
manufacturers may wish to begin using this amended test procedure as
soon as possible. 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.
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix B
to this subpart to determine compliance with any standards for
commercial warm air furnaces that use the thermal efficiency 2 (TE2)
metric.
0. Incorporation by reference.
In Sec. 431.75, DOE incorporated by reference the entire
standard for AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2022, ASME
PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a,
ASTM D5291-10, ASTM E230/E230M-17, NFPA 97-2003, and UL 727-2018.
However, for standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-
2022, and UL 727-2018, only the enumerated provisions of those
documents apply to this appendix, as follows:
[[Page 36235]]
0.1 ANSI Z21.47-2021
(a) Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and
7.2.1 as specified in section 1.1 of this appendix;
(b) Section 5.40 as specified in sections 1.1 and 3.1 of this
appendix;
(c) Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix;
(d) Annex I as specified in section 3.1 of this appendix.
0.2 ASHRAE 103-2022
(a) Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 as specified in section 2.2
of this appendix;
(b) Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 as specified in section 4.1
of this appendix.
0.3 UL 727-2018
(a) Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44,
45, and 46 as specified in section 1.2 of this appendix;
(b) Figure 40.3 as specified in section 2.1 of this appendix.
0.4 AHRI 1500-2015
(a) Section C3.2.1.1 as specified in section 1.2 of this
appendix;
(b) Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 as specified in
section 3.2 of this appendix.
1. Test setup 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.
1.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test setup,
including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurements for determining thermal efficiency are as specified in
section 1.3 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 1.3 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 flue
outlets that have a cross-sectional area of 3.14 square inches or
less), follow the provisions in section 1.3 of this appendix. 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.
1.2 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 1.3 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
Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 46 (Air Flow,
Downflow or Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 1.3 of this
appendix and UL 727-2018 have conflicting provisions (e.g., the
number of thermocouples that should be used when testing units with
flue outlets that have a cross-sectional area of 3.14 inches or
less), follow the provisions in section 1.3 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.
1.3 Additional test setup requirements for gas-fired and oil-
fired commercial warm air furnaces
1.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas-fired and oil-fired commercial
warm air furnaces with flue outlets that have a cross-sectional area
of 3.14 square inches or less. For units with flue outlets having a
cross-sectional area of 3.14 square inches or less, the flue gas
temperatures may optionally be measured using five individual
thermocouples, instead of nine thermocouples.
1.3.2 Procedure for flue gas measurements when testing units
with multiple flue outlets. For units that have multiple flue
outlets, record flue gas measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature,
CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each individual
flue outlet and calculate a weighted-average value based on the
readings of all flue outlets. To determine the weighted average for
each measurement, first determine the input rating of the furnace
module associated with each flue outlet. Then multiply the ratio of
the input rating for the furnace module associated with each
individual flue outlet to the total nameplate input rating of the
furnace (i.e., the input rating associated with each individual flue
outlet divided by the total nameplate input rating) by that flue
outlet's respective component measurement and the sum of all of the
products of the calculations for all of the flue outlets 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.
2. Additional test measurements
2.1 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.
2.2 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 103-2022 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 1.1 of this
appendix.
3. Calculation of thermal efficiency
3.1 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 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 shall be used.
3.2 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).
4. 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.
4.1 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 103-2022, 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.
4.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency for condensing
commercial warm air furnaces. Adjust the thermal efficiency as
calculated in section 3.1 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 4.1 of this appendix, to obtain the thermal
efficiency of a condensing furnace.
0
6. Appendix B to subpart D of part 431 is added to read as follows:
[[Page 36236]]
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431-Uniform Test Method for Measurement
of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency Two)
Note: Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this
appendix B to determine compliance with any standards for commercial
warm air furnaces that use the thermal efficiency 2 (TE2) metric. In
addition, manufacturers may optionally make representations of
energy use or efficiency of this equipment using TE2 as determined
using this appendix starting on July 3, 2023.
0. Incorporation by Reference.
In Sec. 431.75, DOE incorporates by reference the entire
standard ANSI Z21.47-2021. However, only section 5.40 and Appendix J
of ANSI Z21.47-2021 apply, as specified in sections 1.2 and 1.6 of
this appendix.
1. Testing
1.1 Set up and test the unit according to sections 0 through 4
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 3 and 4 of
appendix A to this subpart.
1.2 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 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. The jacket shall consist of the surfaces
surrounding the heating section of the furnace. The jacket includes
all surfaces separating the heating section from the supply air,
outside air, or condenser section, including the bottom surface
separating the heating section from the basepan.
1.3 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor installation within a heated space, jacket loss 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 1.2 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 1.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
1.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 1.3 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to
determine the full-load efficiency.
1.5 Set up and test the unit according to sections 0 through 4
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 3 and 4 of appendix A to this
subpart.
1.6 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 1.2 of this appendix at the maximum nameplate input may
be used.
1.7 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor installation within a heated space, jacket loss 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 1.6 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 1.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
1.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 1.7 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 1.5 of this appendix to
determine the part-load efficiency.
1.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of the full-load and
part-load efficiencies as determined in sections 1.4 and 1.8 of this
appendix, respectively.
[FR Doc. 2023-11341 Filed 6-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
