[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10726-10751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041]
RIN 1904-AE57
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Commercial Warm
Air Furnaces
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public
meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend the
test procedures for commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs'') to
incorporate the latest versions of the industry standards that are
currently incorporated by reference. DOE also proposes to establish a
new metric, Thermal Efficiency Two (``TE2''), and corresponding test
procedure. Use of the newly proposed test procedure would become
mandatory at such time as compliance with amended energy conservation
standards based on TE2 is required, should DOE adopt such standards.
DOE also proposes additional specifications for CWAFs with multiple
vent hoods or small-diameter vent hoods. DOE is seeking comment from
interested parties on the proposal.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than April 26, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, March
29, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to
webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar, it
will be cancelled.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket
[[Page 10727]]
number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: to [email protected]. Include docket number
EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (``COVID-19'') pandemic. DOE is currently
suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand
delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue
hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202)
586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the
COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission,
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held),
comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed
in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041-0001. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(240) 567-6737. Email: [email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'') Z21.47-2021,
``Gas-fired Central Furnaces'';
ANSI/The American Scociety of Mechanical Engineers (``ASME'') PTC
19.3-1974 (R2004), ``Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus'';
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-
conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 103-2017, ``Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers'';
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, can be obtained from American National Standards
Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-
4900, or online at: webstore.ansi.org.
Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') standard UL 727-2018 ``Standard
for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces'';
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW, Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-
5500 or online at: standardscatalog.ul.com.
ANSI/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(``AHRI'') 1500-2015 ``Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating
Boilers'';
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at: ahrinet.org.
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 ``Standard Specification for Temperature-
Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples'';
ASTM D240-09 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'';
ASTM D396-14a ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils'';
ASTM D4809-09a ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)'';
ASTM D5291-10 ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants'';
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, and can be obtained from ASTM,
International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by going online at: www.astm.org.
National Fire Protection Association (``NFPA'') 97-2003 ``Standard
Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing
Appliances''.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained from National Fire
Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471,
(617) 770-3000 or by going online at: www.nfpa.org.
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of
this document.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
C. Deviation From Appendix A
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. UL 727-2006
2. HI BTS-2000
3. ANSI Z21.47
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
C. ``Thermal Efficiency Two'' Metric
1. Jacket Loss
2. Part-Load Performance
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Multiple Vent
Hoods
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space
Limitations
3. Input Rate Tolerance
4. Flue Loss Determination
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
G. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
[[Page 10728]]
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Participation in the Webinar
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
CWAFs are included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which
DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards
and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) DOE's energy conservation
standards and test procedures for CWAFs are currently prescribed at
subpart D of part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
test procedures for CWAFs and relevant background information regarding
DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This
equipment includes CWAFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual
operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedure for CWAFs be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures developed or recognized by the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such industry test procedure is amended, DOE
must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended
industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test
burden, in which case DOE may establish an amended test procedure that
does satisfy those statutory provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and
(C))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAF, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the
Federal Register and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not
less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. DOE is
publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in
satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
B. Background
DOE's current test procedure for CWAFs is codified at 10 CFR
431.76, ``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency
of commercial warm air furnaces.'' The currently applicable test
procedure incorporates by reference two industry standards for testing
gas-fired CWAFs: American National Standards Institute (``ANSI'')
Z21.47-2012, ``Standard for Gas-fired Central Furnaces'' (``ANSI
Z21.47-2012''), which is used for all types of gas-fired CWAFs; and
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 103-2007, ``Method of Testing for
Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and
Boilers'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007''), which is specifically used for
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 10 CFR
[[Page 10729]]
431.76 (c)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (f)(1);10 CFR 431.75(b)(1) and
(c)(1). The current test procedure also incorporates by reference two
industry standards for testing oil-fired CWAFs: Hydronics Institute
Division of AHRI (``HI'') BTS-2000 Rev 06.07, ``Method to Determine
Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating Boilers'' (``HI BTS-2000'') \3\
and Underwriters Laboratories (``UL'') UL 727-2006, ``Standard for
Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces'' (``UL 727-2006'').\4\ 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2), (d)(1), and (e)(2); 10 CFR 471.75(d)(1) and (e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE determined that UL 727-1994 did not provide a procedure
for calculating the percent flue loss of the furnace, which is
necessary in calculating the thermal efficiency, and therefore
incorporated by reference provisions from HI BTS-2000 to calculate
the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR 61916, 61917, 61940 (Oct.
21, 2004).
\4\ UL 727-1994 is also incorporated by reference in 10 CFR
431.75, but is no longer referenced in the test method specified in
10 CFR 431.76, which references only UL 727-2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE most recently amended the test procedure for CWAFs in a final
rule published on July 17, 2015, which updated the test procedure for
gas-fired CWAFs to incorporate by reference the latest versions of the
industry standards available at the time (i.e., ANSI Z21.47-2012 and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007). 80 FR 42614 (``July 2015 final rule''). At the
time of the July 2015 final rule, UL 727-2006 and HI BTS-2000 were
still the most recent versions of those industry standards.
On May 5, 2020, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
soliciting public comments, data, and information on aspects of the
existing DOE test procedure for CWAFs, including whether there are any
issues with the current test procedure and whether it is in need of
updates or revisions. 85 FR 26626 (``May 2020 RFI'').
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1.
Table I.1--Written Comments Received in Response to the May 2020 RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in
Commenter(s) this NOPR Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP............ Efficiency
Project. Organization.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance NEEA............ Efficiency
Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, CA IOUs......... Utility
Southern California Gas Company, Organization.
Southern California Edison, and San
Diego Gas and Electric Company
(collectively, the ``California
Investor-Owned Utilities'').
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI............ Trade
Refrigeration Institute. Association.
American Public Gas Association..... APGA............ Trade
Association.
Carrier Corporation................. Carrier......... Manufacturer.
Trane Technologies.................. Trane........... Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop
test procedures for CWAFs. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041, which
is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged
as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Deviation From Appendix A
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for a test
procedure rulemaking. See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021) (effective
January 12, 2022). Section 8(b) of appendix A states if DOE determines
that it is appropriate to continue the test procedure rulemaking after
the early assessment process, it will provide further opportunities for
early public input through Federal Register documents, including
notices of data availability and/or RFIs. DOE is opting to deviate from
this provision due to the substantial feedback and information supplied
by commenters in response to the May 2020 RFI.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, the May 2020 RFI
requested submission of such comments, data, and information pertinent
to test procedures for CWAFs. In response to the May 2020 RFI,
stakeholders provided substantial comments and information, which DOE
has found sufficient to identify the need to modify the test procedures
for CWAFs. Section III of this NOPR discusses in detail the comments
received and how early stakeholder feedback has been considered in
forming DOE's proposals to amend the CWAF test procedure.
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CWAFs
as follows:
(1) Reorganize the setup and testing provisions in 10 CFR 431.76
related to the determination of thermal efficiency into the newly
established 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix A (``appendix A'');
(2) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the
currently referenced industry standards:
UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006) for testing oil-fired
CWAFs;
AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-2000) for performing
fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs;
ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47-2012) for testing
gas-fired CWAFs; and
ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007) for
testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-
2018 (i.e., NFPA 97-2003), AHRI 1500-2015 (i.e., ASTM D396-14a, ASTM
D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10), and ANSI Z21.47-2021
(i.e., ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004)) that are necessary for
performing the DOE test procedure;
(4) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units
with vent hoods that are 2 inches or smaller in diameter; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D,
appendix B (``appendix B''), which would generally require testing as
in appendix A, but which would establish a new metric, ``TE2.'' The new
TE2 metric would account for jacket losses and part-load operation in
addition to accounting for flue losses. If adopted, manufacturers could
use proposed new appendix B to make voluntary representations of TE2;
this proposed test procedure would become mandatory at such time as
compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based
on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
[[Page 10730]]
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.
Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedures Relative to Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedures Applicable test procedure Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References UL 727-2006 for testing Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
oil-fired CWAFs. UL 727-2018 for testing standard update.
oil-fired CWAFs, and the
standards referenced in
UL 727-2018 that are
necessary in performing
the DOE test procedure
(i.e., NFPA 97-2003).
References HI BTS-2000 for Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
performing fuel oil analysis and AHRI 1500-2015 for standard update.
for calculating flue loss of oil- performing fuel oil
fired CWAFs. analysis and for
calculating flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs and the
standards referenced in
AHRI 1500-2015 that are
necessary in performing
the DOE test procedure
(i.e., ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D240-09, ASTM D4809-
09a, and ASTM D5291-10).
References ANSI Z21.47-2012 for Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
testing gas-fired CWAFs. ANSI Z21.47-2021 for standard update.
testing gas-fired CWAFs,
and the standards
referenced in ANSI Z21.47-
2021 that are necessary
in performing the DOE
test procedure (i.e.,
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974
(R2004)).
References ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 Incorporate by reference Appendix A and appendix B. Align with industry
for testing condensing gas-fired ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 for standard update.
CWAFs. testing condensing gas-
fired CWAFs.
Does not specify how to test units Adds specifications for Appendix A and appendix B. Additional
with multiple vent hoods. units with multiple vent specification to
hoods. Measurements made improve consistency
in each vent hood shall and repeatability
be averaged or adjusted in testing.
using a weighted average,
depending on the flue
hood face area.
Does not specify how to test units Adds specifications to Appendix A and appendix B. Additional
with vent hoods that are too address units with small- specification to
small to fit nine thermocouples. diameter vent hoods. improve consistency
Units with vent hoods and repeatability
that are 2 inches or in testing.
smaller in diameter may
optionally use 5
thermocouples.
Efficiency metric (TE) only Establishes a new metric Appendix B................ Improve
accounts for flue losses and does (TE2) that accounts for representativeness.
not account for jacket losses or flue losses, jacket
part-load operation. losses, and part-load
operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments for the
test procedure at appendix A described in section III of this document
would not alter the measured efficiency of CWAFs, that the proposed
test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, and that the
proposed test procedures more accurately produce test results that
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of
CWAFs during a representative average use cycle.
The additional proposed amendments for the newly proposed appendix
B would alter the reported efficiency of CWAFs, as discussed in the
relevant section of this document. However, as proposed, testing in
accordance with these specific proposed changes would not be required
until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy
conservation standards based on appendix B.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are discussed in detail in
section III of this document.
III. Discussion
In the following sections, DOE describes the proposed amendments to
the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE seeks input from the public to
assist with its consideration of the proposed amendments presented in
this document. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other relevant
issues that may not specifically be identified in this document.
A. Scope of Applicability
This rulemaking applies to CWAFs. EPCA defines ``warm air furnace''
as a self-contained oil-fired or gas-fired furnace designed to supply
heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes
combination warm air furnace/electric air conditioning units, but does
not include unit heaters and duct furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A)) DOE
codified the statutory definition of ``warm air furnace'' at 10 CFR
431.72. DOE defines a CWAF as a warm air furnace that is industrial
equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 225,000
British thermal units (``Btu'') per hour or more. 10 CFR 431.72.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the May 2020 RFI
related to the scope of the CWAF test procedure or relevant definitions
for CWAFs. DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of equipment
covered by its CWAF test procedures, or to the relevant definitions.
B. Updates to Industry Standards
As discussed, DOE currently incorporates by reference in 10 CFR
part 431, subpart D, the following industry test procedures: UL 727-
2006, HI-BTS 2000, ANSI Z21.47-2012, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007.
Updates of each of these test standards have been published since they
were incorporated into the current test procedure. These updated test
standards are UL 727-2018 (update to UL 727-2006), AHRI 1500-2015
(update to HI-BTS 2000), ANSI Z21.47-2021 \6\ (update to ANSI Z21.47-
2016), and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (update to ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 103-2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ At the time of the May 2020 RFI publication, ANSI Z21.47-
2016 was the most up-to-date version of ANSI Z21.47. Since then,
ANSI Z21.47-2021 was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted several differences between the
industry standards currently incorporated by reference and the updated
industry standards and sought comment on these changes. 85 FR 26626,
26629-26631. Each change in the updated versions of
[[Page 10731]]
each standard and stakeholder comments in response to the May 2020 RFI
are discussed in the following sections. DOE did not identify any
substantive differences between the currently referenced industry
standards and their updated versions that would pertain to the DOE test
procedure for CWAFs, other than those discussed in the following
sections. In response to the updates to the relevant industry
standards, DOE is proposing to amend the Federal test procedure for
CWAFs to incorporate by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, the
following updated industry standards: UL 727-2018, AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI
Z21.47-2021, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017.
As discussed, the DOE test procedure for CWAFs is specified in 10
CFR 431.76. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish appendix A to
subpart D of 10 CFR part 431. DOE is reorganizing the CWAF setup and
testing provisions currently proscribed in 10 CFR 431.76 into appendix
A to clarify the test provisions that are necessary for determining
thermal efficiency. DOE is reorganizing 10 CFR 431.76 in the way
because, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is also
establishing appendix B for determining the proposed thermal efficiency
two metric. DOE has tentatively determined that creating separate
appendixes for the determination of the two different metrics would
help clarify which appendix corresponds to which metric (i.e., appendix
A is for thermal efficiency, while appendix B is for thermal efficiency
two). Therefore, the establishment of appendix A is editorial and for
reorganization purposes, and appendix A does not deviate from the
current DOE test procedure unless specifically discussed in the
sections below and in section III.E of this document.
1. UL 727-2006
The CWAF test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76 requires use of those
procedures contained in UL 727-2006 that are relevant to the steady-
state efficiency measurement (i.e., UL 727-2006 sections 1 through 3;
37 through 42 (except for sections 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7);
43.2; and 44 through 46). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified two
updates in UL 727-2018 relating to the scope and to thermocouple
tolerance. 85 FR 26626, 26629-26630. In addition, since the publication
of the May 2020 RFI, DOE has identified one additional update in UL
727-2018 related to the definitions incorporated in section 3 of UL
727-2018. These updates, the comments received from stakeholders
regarding these updates, and DOE's proposal for each update are
discussed in detail in the following sections. As previously mentioned
in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to amend the DOE
test procedure to incorporate by reference UL 727-2018.
a. Scope of UL 727
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the language in section 1 of
the UL 727-2018 test standard regarding the scope of the standard has
been changed from that in UL 727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Section 1.3
in UL 727-2006 references the NFPA ``Standard for Installation of Oil-
Burning Equipment,'' NFPA 31, and codes such as the ``Building
Officials Code Administrators International National Mechanical Code,''
the ``State Building Code Council Standard Mechanical Code,'' and the
``International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
Uniform Mechanical Code'' for requirements for the installation and use
of oil-burning equipment. In contrast, Section 1.3 of UL 727-2018
references the NFPA ``Standard for Installation of Oil-Burning
Equipment,'' NFPA 31, the ``International Mechanical Code,'' and the
``Uniform Mechanical Code'' regarding installation and use of oil-
burning equipment.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE explained that DOE defines the scope for
the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and that the scope of
applicability of the DOE test procedure is independent from the scope
defined by UL-727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Although DOE references the
scope of UL 727-2006 in its test provisions at 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2),
only the procedures within UL 727-2006 that are pertinent to the
measurement of the steady-state efficiency are included in the DOE test
procedure. 10 CFR 431.76(b). Therefore, any provisions within the scope
of UL 727-2006 that do not relate to the measurement of the steady-
state efficiency do not apply to the DOE test procedure.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether there is a need
to identify more specifically the provisions of UL 727-2006 that apply
to the DOE test procedure. Id. In response, AHRI recommended the
adoption of the most current edition of UL 727 published in 2018 and
stated that it does not believe there is a need to identify provisions
from the 2006 edition in the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE has tentatively determined that the scope section of UL 727-
2018 is inapplicable to the DOE test procedure because the scope of the
DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and only
the provisions in UL 727-2018 that relate to the measurement of steady-
state efficiency apply to the DOE test procedure. While DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 in its entirety, DOE
is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions of UL 727-2018 that
are applicable to the DOE test procedure for CWAF, which would not
include the scope section of that industry standard, since the scope of
the DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a).
b. Thermocouple Tolerance
The DOE test procedure currently incorporates Section 40 of UL 727-
2006 for the test set-up for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. 10
CFR 431.76(c)(2). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 40.6.1 of
UL 727-2018, which pertains to temperature measurements using
potentiometers and thermocouples, has different language from UL 727-
2006 and incorporates different ANSI references. 85 FR 26626, 26629-
26630. Specifically, UL 727-2006 specifies that the thermocouple wire
must conform to the requirements specified in the Initial Calibration
Tolerances for Thermocouples table (i.e., Table 8) in International
Society of Automation (``ISA'') standard MC96.1, ``Temperature-
Measurement Thermocouples'' (``ANSI/ISA MC96.1''). In contrast, UL 727-
2018 states that the thermocouple wire must conform to the requirements
specified in the Tolerance on Initial Values of Electromagnetic Force
(``EMF'') Versus Temperature tables (i.e., Tables 1-3) in ANSI/ASTM
E230/E230M-17 ``Standard Specification for Temperature-Electromotive
Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples,'' (``ASTM E230/
E230M-17''). The thermocouple specifications in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 and
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 are applicable only to the range of
temperatures associated with the types of thermocouples specified in
each of the industry standards. As discussed in the May 2020 RFI, based
on an initial review of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, the temperature ranges
to which the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 specifications apply differ from
the temperature ranges specified in MC96.1 for certain thermocouple
wires. Specifically, ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 includes temperature
ranges and specifications for thermocouple types C, N, and mineral-
insulated metal-sheathed E type, which are not included in ANSI/ISA
MC96.1; and tolerances on initial values of EMF versus temperature for
extension wires and compensating extension wires in ANSI/ASTM E230/
[[Page 10732]]
E230M-17 (i.e., Tables 2 and 3) have been added to Section 40.6.1 of UL
727-2018. Id. at 85 FR 26630.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the changes
resulting from UL 727-2018 referencing ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17.
Specifically, DOE asked for comment on whether the additional
references and changes to the thermocouple and thermocouple extension
wire requirements would impact the representativeness of the measured
test results or test burden of the DOE CWAF test procedure, if adopted.
Id. DOE also sought comment on why Section 40.6.1 in UL 727 was changed
from referencing ANSI/ISA MC96.1 in UL 727-2006, to ANSI/ASTM E230/
E230M in UL 727-2018. DOE requested input on the perceived benefits
and/or drawbacks of such change. 85 FR 26626, 26630.
AHRI encouraged DOE to evaluate how any additions or changes to the
thermocouple and thermocouple extension wire requirements to determine
the full impact any differences may have on current products' ability
to remain compliant. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that
ANSI/ISA MC96.1 is an obsolete standard that was last published in 1982
and was administratively withdrawn by ISA in 2011. Additionally, AHRI
stated that the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard represents current
technologies and is maintained on a periodic basis in accordance with
the ASTM standards development procedures. (AHRI, No. 7 at pp. 2-3)
DOE has confirmed that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 was administratively
withdrawn by ISA. As the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard is the
current industry standard regarding thermocouples, it is expected that
thermocouples currently being used for testing meet the specifications
of that industry standard. Furthermore, DOE notes that the requirements
in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 allow additional thermocouple wires for
testing, in addition to those that were specified in ANSI/ISA MC96.1.
Therefore, DOE expects units tested according to the previous
requirements in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 would subsequently meet those in ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M-17. DOE received no additional comments on this topic.
Absent data and information to indicate that the requirements in ANSI/
ASTM E230/E230M-17 are not appropriate or result in a significant
change from the provisions in ANSI/ISA MC96.1. DOE has tentatively
determined that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate ANSI/
ASTME230/E230M-17 would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2) and (3), related to representative use and test burden.
Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test procedure
that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it difficult to
obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing to
incorporate the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 thermocouple provisions
referenced in UL 727-2018 (i.e., Tables 1-3 of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17)
in the DOE test procedure for CWAFs.
c. NFPA 97-2003
Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727-2018 state that the definitions of
terms ``combustible'' and ``noncombustible'' are the definitions found
within NFPA 97M, ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Gas
Vents and Heat Producing Appliances'' (``NFPA 97M''). UL 727-2018 does
not specify which version of NFPA 97M is being referenced in the
standard, nor does it include a publication date of version number of
the NFPA 97M standard. The latest version of NFPA 97M of which DOE is
aware is a version published in 1967. DOE also notes that NFPA's
website does not contain a NFPA 97M publication, and instead contains
NFPA 97-2003 ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents,
and Heat-Producing Appliances'' (NFPA 97-2003). NFPA 97-2003 contains
definitions for ``combustible material'' and ``noncombustible
material,'' however NFPA 97M only contains a definition for
``combustible material.'' DOE notes that there are minor differences
between the definitions for ``combustible material'' in both standards,
and that DOE tentatively concludes that there are no substantial
differences.\7\ Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that UL 727-2018
references an outdated standard (NFPA 97M) and should instead reference
the most up-to-date industry standard (NFPA 97-2003). Therefore, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003, and is proposing
that the references to NFPA 97M that are relevant to the DOE test
procedure (i.e., those made within Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727-
2018) shall instead reference NFPA 97-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NFPA 97-2003 defines ``combustible material'' as ``material
made of or surfaced with wood, compressed paper, plant fiber,
plastics, or other material that can ignite and burn, whether
flameproofed or not, or whether plastered or unplastered.'' (Section
3.3.44 of NFPA 97-2003) NFPA 97M defines ``combustible material'' as
``combustible material, as pertaining to materials adjacent to or in
contact with heat-producing appliances, chimney connectors and vent
connectors, steam and hot-water pipes, and warm-air ducts, means
material made of or surfaced with wood, compressed paper, plant
fibers, or other materials that will ignite and burn. Such material
shall be considered as combustible even though flameproofed, fire-
retardant treated, or plastered.'' (NFPA 97M, part II, p. 193)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is an
outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE seeks
comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003 in 10
CFR part 431, subpart D.
2. HI BTS-2000
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs references sections of HI
BTS-2000 that are relevant to fuel oil analysis and calculating percent
flue loss (i.e., HI BTS-2000 sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and
11.1.6.2). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2) and (e)(2). DOE's test procedure
includes these provisions because DOE has previously determined that UL
727 does not provide a procedure for calculating the percent flue loss
of the furnace, which is necessary in calculating the thermal
efficiency (``TE''), and therefore incorporated by reference provisions
from HI BTS-2000 to calculate the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR
61916, 61917, 61940.
In 2015, HI BTS-2000 was redesignated by AHRI as AHRI 1500-2015. In
the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified two substantive changes in the
sections relevant to the DOE test procedure in the update from HI BTS-
2000 to AHRI 1500-2015 regarding fuel oil analysis and calculation of
flue loss. 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE requested comment generally
regarding whether any of the differences between Sections 8.2.2,
11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 and AHRI 1500-2015 are
relevant to the DOE test procedure, and if so, how such differences
would impact the representativeness of measurements and the associated
test burden of the DOE commercial warm air furnaces test procedure, if
adopted. Id. at 85 FR 26631. The updates to AHRI 1500-2015, the
comments received from stakeholders regarding these updates, and DOE's
proposal for each update are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs. As previously mentioned in section III.B of this document,
DOE is proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to incorporate by
reference AHRI 1500-2015.
a. Fuel Oil Analysis Requirements
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs includes fuel oil analysis
requirements that reference Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000. 10 CFR
431.76(c)(2). As noted in the May 2020 RFI, Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI
1500-2015 (previously Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000) specifies different
fuel oil
[[Page 10733]]
analysis requirements (i.e., heating value analyzed per ASTM D240-09
\8\ or ASTM D4809-09a,\9\ hydrogen and carbon content analyzed per ASTM
D5291-10,\10\ and density and American Petroleum Institute (``API'')
gravity analyzed per ASTM D396-14a \11\) than are required in Section
8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000 (i.e., heat value, hydrogen and carbon content,
density and API gravity analyzed per ASTM D396-90 \12\). 85 FR 26626,
26631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ASTM D240-09 ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'' (``ASTM D240-
09'').
\9\ ASTM D4809-09a ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)''
(``ASTM D4809-09a'').
\10\ ASTM D5291-10 ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum
Products and Lubricants'' (``ASTM D5291-10'').
\11\ ASTM D396-14a ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils''
(``ASTM D396-14a'').
\12\ ASTM D396-90 ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils''
(``ASTM D396-90'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the
differences between the fuel oil analysis requirements in each
standard, whether the differences between the two would yield different
results during testing, and whether adopting AHRI 1500-2015 would add
or reduce burden to the current testing requirements of the DOE test
procedure. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to ensure that fuel oil analysis
requirements are consistent across applicable test procedures. (CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the two standards show no
significant changes and that adoption of AHRI 1500-2015 would not yield
different results during testing. AHRI reiterated its support for the
adoption of the most current edition of this standard, stating that
this edition represents the most current technology and information
available at the time of publication, and that HI BTS-2000 is an
obsolete standard no longer maintained by AHRI. Furthermore, AHRI
stated that it has determined that there is no change in the burden by
adopting AHRI 1500-2015. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has not received any information or data indicating that
updating the HI BTS-2000 reference to AHRI 1500-2015 would result in a
test procedure that would not meet the representativeness requirements
or be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE has confirmed that HI BTS-2000
is no longer maintained by AHRI and has tentatively determined that it
is an obsolete standard. AHRI 1500-2015 represents the industry's most
up to date requirements for fuel oil analysis, and no issues or
differences between the new and old standards that would impact results
or require retesting have been reported to DOE. Because of this, and
based on stakeholder comment, DOE has tentatively determined that
incorporating AHRI 1500-2015 into the DOE test procedure would not
impact the performance of a CWAF under test or require CWAFs to be
retested. Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test
procedure that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it
difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that AHRI 1500-2015, the successor industry
standard to the currently referenced HI BTS-2000, contains fuel oil
analysis requirements that are equivalent to the requirements in HI
BTS-2000 and are currently being used by test facilities. Therefore,
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015, including
its fuel oil analysis specifications.
b. Calculation of Carbon Dioxide in Flue Gas Losses
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 11.1.4 of HI BTS-2000
requires that the carbon dioxide (``CO2'') value used in the
calculation of the dry flue gas loss for oil must be the measured
CO2. 85 FR 26626, 26631. Section C7.2.4 of AHRI 1500-2015
(previously Section 11.1.4 in HI BTS-2000) includes the option to
calculate CO2 using the measured oxygen (``O2'')
value instead of directly measuring the CO2 value. The DOE
test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76(d) requires that CO2 must be
measured.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether the option to
calculate CO2 in AHRI 1500-2015 yields different testing
results compared to using the measured value, and whether it should
adopt the AHRI 1500-2015 provisions that allow for measuring
O2 and calculating CO2. Id. The CA IOUs stated
that measuring CO2 levels is more accurate than calculating
CO2 levels based on O2 measurements. The CA IOUs
also stated that since certified labs and manufacturers are already
equipped to measure CO2, DOE should maintain the current
requirement for direct CO2 measurements. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at
p. 4) AHRI recommended that the option to calculate CO2
based on a measurement of O2 be added to the DOE test
method. AHRI stated that using a calculated CO2 yields
comparable results and is equivalent using a measured CO2
value. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has identified O2 sensors on the market that are
accurate to within 0.1 percent, which is equivalent to or
greater than the accuracy of the CO2 sensors used in labs
that perform CWAF testing. Therefore, if such O2 sensors are
used to measure O2 as a means for calculating
CO2, the value of CO2 obtained through
calculation and the value obtained through direct measurement should be
comparable. DOE also consulted with independent third-party testing
facilities and found that some of these facilities currently use
sensors that measure O2 in the flue gasses and perform an
internal calculation to determine CO2 in the flue gasses. In
addition, AHRI 1500-2015 includes the option to directly measure
CO2, so if that option is less burdensome, test facilities
would continue to be able to rely on it. DOE has tentatively determined
that calculating CO2 using a measured O2 value,
as specified in AHRI 1500-2015, would provide results equivalent to the
CO2 measurement currently required by the DOE test method,
and that allowing a calculated value of CO2 would harmonize
with the latest industry standard without increasing test burden. For
these reasons, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the provisions
in AHRI 1500-2015 that provide an optional procedure for measuring
CO2 based on measured O2 values. DOE also
proposes to establish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update of 10
CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to reflect DOE's
proposal to allow measuring O2, and this includes requiring
that O2 measurements are determined with an instrument that
has a reading error no greater than 0.1 percent. DOE notes
that Table C1 of AHRI 1500-2017 specifies that O2 shall be
measured with an accuracy no greater than 0.1 percent, and
therefore this proposal aligns with the requirements in the industry
standard.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method
specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO2
using a measured O2 value. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal to establish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update of 10
CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to accommodate the
option to calculate CO2 using a measured O2
value.
3. ANSI Z21.47
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the test method in 10 CFR
431.76 for gas-fired CWAFs requires the use of procedures contained in
ANSI Z21.47-2012 that are relevant to the steady-state efficiency
measurement (i.e., Sections 1.1, 2.1 through 2.6, 2.39, and 4.2.1 of
ANSI Z21.47-2012). 81 FR 26626, 26630. DOE noted that the majority of
the test standard provisions relevant to
[[Page 10734]]
DOE's test procedure did not change in the most up-to-date version of
the industry standard at that time, ANSI Z21.47-2016. Id. The revisions
that were made were mostly editorial in nature, including moving
Section 2 in ANSI Z21.47-2012 to Section 5 in ANSI Z21.47-2016, among
other structural changes. In reviewing the 2012 and 2016 versions of
the standard, DOE identified one apparent typographical error in the
2016 version.
Since the publication of the May 2020 RFI, an updated version of
the ANSI Z21.47 standard was published in 2021: ANSI Z21.47-2021. DOE
notes that the only substantive difference between the 2016 and 2021
versions relevant to the sections referenced by the DOE test procedure
is related to burner operating characteristics tests specified in
Section 5.4a of both ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI Z21.47-2021.
The updates to ANSI Z21.47-2012 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI
Z21.47-2021, as well as the scope of the industry standard, are
discussed in further detail in the following sections. As previously
mentioned in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to amend
the DOE test procedure to reference ANSI Z21.47-2021, as it is the most
recent version of the industry test procedure.
a. Scope of ANSI Z21.47
DOE's test procedure for CWAFs currently includes reference to the
scope Section (section 1.1) of ANSI Z21.47-2012. 10 CFR 431.76(c). As
previously stated in section III.B.1.a of this document, DOE defines
the scope for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and DOE's test
procedure for CWAFs requires use of ANSI Z21.47 only for provisions
pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency.
While DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021
in its entirety, DOE is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions
of ANSI Z21.47-2021 that are applicable to the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs, which would not include the scope section of that industry
standard.
b. Typographical Error
Section 2.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and the corresponding Section
5.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2021 provide installation requirements for
horizontal furnaces. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 appears to contain a typographical
error by referencing ``Figure 4, Enclosure types for alcove and closet
installation tests for horizontal furnaces.'' 85 FR 26626, 26630. The
title of Figure 4 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is ``Enclosure types for alcove
and closet installation tests for up-flow and down-flow furnaces,'' and
as titled, Figure 4 applies only to up-flow and down-flow furnaces. It
appears that the appropriate reference in Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI
Z21.47-2016 should be to Figure 5, ``Enclosed types for alcove and
closet installation tests for horizontal furnaces.''
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether Section
5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should refer to Figure 5 in the test
procedure, rather than Figure 4. Id. AHRI, Trane, and Carrier all
agreed that the reference to Figure 4 was a typographical error, and
that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should refer to Figure
5. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
In the update to the industry standard, ANSI Z21.47-2021 corrected
this typographical error by having Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) reference
Figure 5. Therefore, the typographical error in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is no
longer relevant because DOE is now proposing to incorporate by
reference ANSI Z21.47-2021.
c. Propane Nomenclature
DOE also asked for comment regarding any differences between ANSI
Z21.47-2012 and ANSI Z21.47-2016, and specifically whether there are
any differences other than those already identified by DOE in the May
2020 RFI. Id. In response to DOE's request for comment regarding any
additional differences between ANSI Z21.47-2012 and ANSI Z21.47-2016,
AHRI and Trane both noted that in ANSI Z21.47-2016, the term
``propane'' is used in place of the term ``liquified petroleum gas;''
however, the commenters stated that this change is not substantive.\13\
(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 2) Carrier did not
specifically comment on this nomenclature change, although it stated
that there are no additional updates in AHRI Z21.47-2016 that would
impact the DOE test procedure, other than those already identified by
DOE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Trane stated that ANSI Z21.47-2016 uses the term
``propane'' in place of the term ``liquified natural gas''. (Trane,
No. 9 at p. 2) However, DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47-2012 uses the
term ``liquified petroleum gas,'' not ``liquified natural gas,'' and
believes this was what Trane intended to note.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47-2021 also uses the term ``propane'' in
place of ``liquified petroleum gas.'' DOE tentatively agrees with AHRI
and Trane that the use of ``propane'' instead of ``liquified petroleum
gas'' is for clarification only, and, therefore, does not affect the
test procedure. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference
ASNI Z21.47-2021 and specify use of the sections that correspond to the
sections currently referenced in the DOE test procedure (i.e., Sections
5.1 through 5.6, 5.40, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021),), including the
language referring to ``propane'' instead of ``liquefied petroleum
gas.''
d. Burner Operating Characteristics Tests
Section 2.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2012 is referenced in the current DOE
test procedure for CWAFs. 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2). This section states that
three separate tests (each specified in Sections 2.9.1(a), 2.10.1, and
2.11.3, respectively, of ANSI Z21.47-2012) shall be performed prior to
the performance test to ensure that there is no burner flashback and
that the ignition system is working properly. Section 2.4a states that
these three burner operating characteristics tests shall be conducted
with test gas G (i.e., butane-air). ANSI Z21.47-2021 includes a minor
alteration to these provisions, which allows for performing these tests
with a different test gas. Section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously
section 2.4a in ANSI Z21.47-2012) states that the burner operating
characteristics tests shall be performed with either test gas G or, at
the manufacturer's option for testing premixed burners, test gas H
(i.e., propane-air). DOE notes that the burner operating
characteristics tests, including the test gas used for these tests, do
not affect the TE measurement of a CWAF. Therefore, DOE does not have
evidence to deviate from the industry test procedure and proposes to
adopt Section 5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2021, including the previsions
regarding the use of test gas as an option when performing the burner
characteristics tests.
DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section 5.4a of
ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three burner
characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or burden of
the thermal efficiency test.
4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that DOE's test procedure for gas-
fired condensing CWAFs references Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, 11.3.7.1
and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007. 10 CFR 431.76; 85 FR
26626, 26630. DOE did not identify any substantive changes in the
sections currently referenced by the DOE test procedure in the update
from ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 to ANSI/
[[Page 10735]]
ASHRAE 103-2017; however, DOE asked for comment on whether there were
any differences between the two standards that are relevant to the DOE
test procedure, and if so, how such differences would impact the
representativeness of measurements and the test burden of the DOE test
procedure for CWAFs, if adopted. Id.
AHRI commented that Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 in ANSI/ASHRAE
103-2017 were modified to replace a fixed numerical value with
mathematical expressions, but that there were no significant changes to
the clauses specified in the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3)
Trane stated that equations were modified only in terms from numeric to
mathematical, but that this did not change the outcomes of the
measurements. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that the two equations in Sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 have been modified. ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
2007 includes variables in each equation that are defined as constants
in the list of variables below each equation (e.g., latent heat of
vaporization equals 1053.3 Btu per pound mass (``Btu/lbm'')); in
contrast, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 inserts the constants directly into each
equation. DOE has tentatively determined that the changes to the
equations referenced by DOE (specifically those in clauses 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017) are editorial in nature and do not
change the calculated values. As previously mentioned in section III.B
of this document, DOE is proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, which would include these changes.
C. ``Thermal Efficiency Two'' Metric
As previously discussed, EPCA requires that the test procedures for
CWAFs be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry
test procedure or rating procedure is amended, the Secretary shall
amend the test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent
with the amended industry test procedure or rating procedure unless the
Secretary determines, by rule, published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that to do so would not
meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden.\14\ (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) requires that test procedures be
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of
industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(3) requires that if
the test procedure is a procedure for determining estimated annual
operating costs, such procedure shall provide that such costs shall
be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative
average-use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and from
representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate
such equipment during such cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in further detail in the sub-sections that immediately
follow, DOE has tentatively determined that a test procedure that
includes jacket loss and accounts for part-load operation would better
produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs of CWAFs during a representative average use
cycle. CWAFs are typically installed outdoors and as a result jacket
losses can be a significant source of energy loss. Further, for models
with multiple heating stages, performance can vary at the maximum input
heating stage as compared to reduced input stage(s). Therefore, DOE is
proposing to account for these factors by establishing a new test
procedure and metric for CWAFs, termed ``Thermal Efficiency Two''
(``TE2''), which would generally adopt the same changes proposed for
the current test procedure at appendix A, but would additionally
account for jacket losses and part load operation. The proposed TE2
test procedure would account for flue losses in the same manner as the
current TE metric. DOE proposes to establish a new appendix B to 10 CFR
part 431, which would contain the test method for TE2.
If adopted, manufacturers would be permitted to make voluntary
representations using TE2. Mandatory use of the TE2 test procedure
would be required at such time as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such
standards. DOE is, therefore, also proposing to retain the test method
for TE, which is proposed to be modified as discussed elsewhere in this
document, in appendix A for use until such time as TE2 becomes
mandatory.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test procedure
(i.e., appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which would
generally adopt the same changes proposed for the current test
procedure at appendix A and account for flue losses in the same manner
as the current TE metric, but would additionally account for jacket
losses and part load operation.
1. Jacket Loss
As discussed, the current energy efficiency metric for CWAFs is TE.
10 CFR 431.77. TE for a CWAF is defined in 10 CFR 431.72 as 100 percent
minus the percent flue loss, and is calculated, as specified in 10 CFR
431.76(e), by following the procedure specified in Section 2.39 of ANSI
Z21.47-2012 for gas-fired CWAFs and Sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and
11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 for oil-fired CWAFs.\15\ A test method and
calculations for determining the jacket loss percentage (i.e., the
hourly heat loss through the jacket divided by the hourly input and
multiplied by 100) are included in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012
(and the corresponding Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021), which is
referenced in the DOE test procedure. However, the jacket loss
percentage is not included in the equation used to calculate TE.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 10 CFR 431.76(f) (i.e., section 5 of appendix A) includes a
TE adjustment for condensing CWAFs. This adjustment adds the
additional heat gain (expressed in a percent) from condensation of
water vapor to the TE and subtracts the heat loss (expressed as a
percent) due to the flue condensate flowing down the drain.
\16\ DOE notes that Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section
5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 specify a maximum jacket loss of 1.5
percent for any furnace not covered by ``Federal Energy Acts''
(i.e., not regulated by DOE). This provision is not referenced as
part of the DOE test procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether jacket loss
should be accounted for in the calculation of TE. Specifically, DOE
asked for comment regarding information and data on whether and to what
extent inclusion of jacket loss would provide results that would more
appropriately reflect energy efficiency during a representative average
use cycle, and also information and data as to the test burden that
would be associated with potential inclusion of jacket loss as part of
the DOE CWAF test procedure. Id
ASAP, NEEA,\17\ and the CA IOUs each supported adding jacket loss
to the TE metric, stating that jacket loss could have a large impact on
overall thermal efficiency. (ASAP, No. 5 at p.1; NEEA, No. 10 at p.3;
CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.4) Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that furnace
jacket losses have significant variations based on the installation
configuration (e.g., stand-alone vs. embedded in a commercial unitary
air-conditioner (``CUAC'')) and the mode of operation used for testing
(e.g., full-load
[[Page 10736]]
vs. part-load), and suggested that DOE consider using the method in
ASHRAE 155P for determining commercial boiler jacket loss for CWAFs, if
this method is repeatable and reproducible. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4)
NEEA stated that its energy modeling showed that improved insulation,
decreased casing leakage, and decreased damper leakage can save up to
11 percent of annual energy consumption, and that this magnitude of
energy savings is comparable with that of a condensing secondary heat
exchanger, which is listed as ``max tech'' in the current CWAF energy
conservation standards rulemaking. NEEA also stated that although CWAFs
are separately regulated from CUACs, the two types of equipment are
often contained within the same rooftop unit (``RTU''), and that
enclosure improvements that would improve efficiency of CWAFs would
also improve efficiency for CUACs. (NEEA, No. 10 at pp. 3-4) ASAP
stated that since the impact of improved insulation is not currently
considered in the test procedure, two CWAF units could have the same
efficiency rating and yet provide significantly different performance
if one unit had better insulation than the other. ASAP further
explained that capturing the impact of improved insulation would
provide testing results that would better reflect the efficiency of
CWAFs during a representative average use cycle, and, in turn, provide
better information to purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ DOE also received comment from NEEA supporting the addition
of jacket loss to the TE metric in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
(NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at pp. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI, Carrier,\18\ and Trane opposed incorporating jacket loss into
the TE metric and asserted that it would have a minimal effect on
performance. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 4 at pp. 1-2; Trane,
No. 9 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane stated that including jacket loss in the
TE calculation would result in minimal change in TE and would lower the
TE of the CWAF. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5 Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) Carrier also
stated that for larger commercial equipment, factory installed options
are available that can increase the size of the cabinet downstream of
the furnace section, and that test burden on manufacturers would
increase significantly if all options that impact jacket size are
required to be tested. Carrier asserted that DOE would have to
demonstrate the energy benefit since jacket losses are relatively low
and their inclusion would result in increased test burden, different
design requirements, and significantly higher cost for the manufacturer
and the end customer if the minimum efficiency standards did not
materially change. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ DOE also received comment from Carrier opposing this in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, similarly, stating that jacket
loss would have a minimal effect on performance, and that this
minimal affect does not justify its inclusion the TE. (Carrier,
EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 at p. 5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 12, 2020, DOE published an energy conservation standards RFI
(``May 2020 ECS RFI'') for air-cooled CUACs, commercial unitary heat
pumps, and CWAFs. 85 FR 27941. DOE received multiple comments from
stakeholders in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that are related to
jacket loss and that are relevant to DOE's consideration of whether to
incorporate jacket losses into the test procedure for CWAFs.
Specifically, the Joint Advocates recommended that DOE amend the CWAF
test procedure to include effects of improved insulation.\19\ (Joint
Advocates, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at p. 3) AHRI stated that it does
not see a justification to include jacket loss in the measured energy
efficiency, and that there would be minimal, if any, change in the
usable heat provided to the end user if jacket loss is added to the TE
calculation. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 4) Goodman stated
that jacket losses should not be included in the CWAF test procedure,
and that inclusion of jacket loss would require new and more difficult
testing and increased burden. (Goodman, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0017 at
pp. 2-3) Lastly, Goodman recommended DOE not include jacket loss in the
DOE test procedure because ASHRAE 90.1-2019 requires that CWAF jacket
loss not exceed 0.75 percent of the CWAF input rating, and therefore
any effect on measured performance would be small enough to not justify
the added burden. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Join Advocates include the following organizations:
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural
Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Goodman's reference to the jacket loss requirement for
CWAFs in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, DOE notes that as part of a final rule
published on May 16, 2012 (``May 2012 final rule'') amending energy
conservation standards and test procedures for commercial heating, air-
conditioning, and water-heating equipment, DOE addressed the ASHRAE
90.1 requirement pertaining to jacket loss.\20\ In the May 2012 final
rule, DOE determined that if ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for
equipment for which an efficiency level is already specified (e.g., a
jacket loss requirement in addition to a TE requirement), DOE does not
have the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment
type. 77 FR 28928, 28937. Specifically, DOE explained that pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the Secretary has authority to amend the energy
conservation standards for specified equipment, but under 42 U.S.C.
6311(18), the statute's definition of the term ``energy conservation
standard'' is limited to: (A) A performance standard that prescribes a
minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use
for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product. DOE stated
that the language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance
standard or a single design standard. As such, DOE concluded that a
standard that establishes both a performance standard and a design
requirement is beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority. Id.\21\
Additionally, DOE previously considered including jacket loss in the TE
calculation in a NOPR published on December 13, 1999. 64 FR 69598,
69601 (``December 1999 NOPR''). In the December 1999 NOPR, DOE did not
propose to include jacket loss in the TE calculation, having determined
that, consistent with adopting industry test standards referenced in
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989, the statute's intent is to assign the
same meaning to the term ``thermal efficiency'' as its definition in
the corresponding referenced standards, i.e., 100 percent minus percent
flue loss. Id. DOE's determination in the December 1999 NOPR was
informed by a public workshop held on April 14 and 15, 1998, and what
DOE understood to be
[[Page 10737]]
the consensus of the participants that TE should not include jacket
loss, because ANSI Z21.47 defined TE without jacket loss. Id. As such,
DOE acknowledges that the TE as currently determined under ANSI Z21.47
does not include jacket loss even if it is a requirement of ASHRAE 90.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The version of ASHRAE 90.1 that was available at the time
of the May 2012 final rule (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010) includes the
same 0.75-percent jacket loss requirement that is in ASHRAE 90.1-
2019.
\21\ DOE notes that it has adopted dual metrics under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A), when the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, and set a dual metric and accompanying standard levels.
See, e.g., 77 FR 28928 (May 16, 2012) (DOE adopted energy
conservation standards for cooling and heating modes in terms of
both Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) and Coefficient of Performance
(COP) for variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps
with cooling capacities at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less
than 760,000 Btu/h (for which DOE did not previously have standards)
in response to updated standards for such equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.) DOE has also adopted a dual metric where a consensus
agreement has been presented to DOE for adoption as a direct final
rule (DFR) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). See, e.g., 76 FR 37408
(June 27, 2011) (For central air conditioners, DOE adopted dual
metrics (i.e., the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and EER)
for the hot-dry region as recommended by a consensus agreement
supported by a variety of interested stakeholders including
manufacturers and environmental and efficiency advocates.) DOE has
interpreted these specific statutory provisions as authorizing an
exception to the general rule previously stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted, DOE is generally required to adopt a test procedure for
CWAFs that is consistent with the generally accepted industry testing
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such
industry test procedure (i.e., the test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1) is updated, DOE must amend its test procedure to be
consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would
not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and (C))
Additionally, EPCA also requires that DOE periodically evaluate the
test procedures for CWAFs to determine whether amended test procedures
would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the
test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
For the reasons that follow, DOE has tentatively determined that
incorporating a jacket loss measurement into the test procedure and
metric for CWAFs would improve the representativeness of the test
procedure by capturing an attribute of CWAFs other than combustion
efficiency (i.e., jacket loss) that can have a substantive impact on
the overall energy use of CWAFs.
The current TE is essentially a measure of combustion efficiency.
However, the energy efficiency of the equipment is influenced by
factors in addition to combustion efficiency (i.e., jacket loss).
Jacket loss contributes to the overall energy use of a CWAF and is,
therefore, one of the parameters that determines a CWAF's overall
efficiency. Heat loss through the cabinet (i.e., jacket loss) is
proportional to the thickness of the insulation and/or insulative
material used. DOE tentatively agrees with ASAP that CWAFs with the
same TE, as determined under the current DOE test procedure, could have
different performance in the field if one unit has different insulation
than the other. DOE also notes that the vast majority of CWAFs are
installed within CUACs located on rooftops, and that these outdoor
installations will result in greater jacket loss than CWAFs installed
indoors because of the colder ambient air. As such, DOE tentatively
agrees with the CA IOUs that performance of a CWAF will vary depending
on installation location because of different levels of jacket loss.
Differences in performance based on differences in jacket loss are not
captured by the current DOE test procedure and metric. Incorporating
jacket loss into a TE2 metric will therefore account for differences in
CWAF insulation. Additionally, weighting jacket loss based on
installation location, which DOE discusses more in the following
paragraphs, will account for the differences in jacket loss across
various installation locations.
DOE is proposing that, for CWAFs that are designed for outdoor
installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized,
or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow) or designed for
indoor installation in an unheated space (i.e., isolated combustion
systems),\22\ jacket loss shall be measured in accordance with the
Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. DOE is proposing to multiply this
measured jacket loss by jacket loss factors to account for differences
in installation location. DOE proposes that a jacket loss factor of 1.7
for CWAFs designed for indoor installation in an unheated space (i.e.,
isolated combustion system), or 3.3 for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation (including, but not limited to, CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow) be
multiplied by the measured jacket loss before subtracting the product
from thermal efficiency (i.e., TE2 is calculated as 100 percent minus
flue and jacket loss, when the jacket loss is the measured jacket loss
multiplied by the jacket loss factor). DOE is also proposing that the
jacket loss shall be zero for CWAFs designed for installation indoors
within a heated space because the heat loss through the CWAF's jacket
would go directly into the heated space. DOE notes that this approach
is consistent with the approach taken in appendix N to subpart B of 10
CFR part 430 for measuring AFUE in residential furnaces, which
references ASHRAE 103. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined these
are the appropriate jacket loss factors to use based on the values
found in Section 11.2.11 of ASHRAE 103-2017, and is proposing to use
these factors in newly proposed appendix B.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ This description of a CWAF designed for outdoor
installation is consistent with a residential weatherized warm air
furnace specified in 10 CFR 430.2.
\23\ DOE notes that the jacket loss factor in Section 11.2.11 of
ASHRAE 103-2017 for equipment intended for indoor installation
within a heated space is 0.0. As such, jacket loss would be
calculated as zero. Therefore, as previously mentioned, DOE is
proposing the jacket loss would be assumed to be zero for CWAFs
intended for indoor installation within a heated space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As previously mentioned, DOE references Section 2.39 of ANSI
Z21.47-2012 (now Section 5.40 in ANSI Z21.47-21), which includes a test
procedure for determining jacket loss. DOE does not currently reference
Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which includes the equation used to
calculate jacket loss. Annex J also includes Figures J.1 and J.2 which
are used to determine the coefficient of convection and coefficient of
radiation for the surface, which are two coefficients used in the
calculation of jacket loss. DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the jacket loss test procedure specified in Section 5.40 of
ANSI Z21.47-2021, which includes a reference to Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-
2021, for both gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs. Specifically, DOE is
proposing to adopt this test procedure for measuring jacket loss when
testing to newly proposed appendix B to determine TE2.
To the extent that manufacturers participate in the industry
certification program under ASHRAE 90.1, such manufacturers should
already be measuring jacket loss according to the test procedure
proposed in this NOPR due to the prescriptive jacket loss requirement
in ASHRAE 90.1. Based on a review of models on the market, DOE found
the majority of CWAFs indicate in product literature that they comply
with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1, which indicates that many CWAFs
are already tested for jacket loss.
DOE is proposing to adopt the industry test standard for
determining jacket loss that DOE has tentatively determined is
currently being used by industry, and as such would not be unduly
burdensome. Additionally, testing according to appendix B would be
mandatory only at such time as compliance is required with amended
energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such
standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to incorporate jacket loss in the
proposed TE2 metric.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be
measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor
[[Page 10738]]
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space when determining TE2 pursuant to newly proposed appendix B, and
on its proposed method for measuring jacket loss. DOE also seeks
comment on its proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs intended for indoor
installation within a heated space would be assumed to be zero, and on
its proposed jacket loss factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space.
2. Part-Load Performance
In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received comments from NEEA
and the CA IOUs encouraging DOE to adopt a metric and test procedure
that account for operation at part load. (NEEA, No. 10 pp. 1-2; CA
IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA and the CA IOUs both asserted that CWAFs
spend the majority of their time in a low fire mode (i.e., part load)
and that adopting a metric that includes part load would better
represent the operation of CWAFs in the field. Id. More specifically,
NEEA asserted that CWAFs often spend 10 to 20 percent of their time at
high fire mode (i.e., full load), and that DOE should update its test
procedure to include reduced firing rates (i.e., part-load) and
seasonal performance so that the test procedure is more representative
of an average use cycle.\24\ NEEA recommended a seasonal metric be
used, asserting that jacket loss, damper leakage, and fan performance
would be affected by CWAFs installed in colder climates. (NEEA, No. 10
p.2) NEEA also commented that other DOE test procedures for HVAC
equipment have been transitioning to measure part-load and seasonal
performance, and that the CWAF test procedure should likewise be
updated. (NEEA, No. 10 p. 1) The CA IOUs stated that cyclic losses due
to cycling of the burners negatively impacts efficiency of a CWAF, and
that accounting for this would increase the representativeness of the
test procedure. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NEEA referenced the following energy model: Energy Modeling
of Commercial Gas Rooftop Units in Support of CSA P.8 Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI commented that any additional requirements beyond the current
test procedure provisions would be a burden to manufacturers, and that
any changes that affect testing or calculations are likely to be overly
burdensome compared to any benefits, due to what AHRI characterized as
the relatively small market for these appliances. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
77)
DOE reviewed the current CWAF market and found that the vast
majority of CWAFs certified to DOE have two or more stages of heating.
DOE notes that CWAFs with two or more stages can operate at reduced
firing rates to meet the building load. Under the current DOE test
procedure, TE reflects the efficiency of the burner and the efficiency
of the heat exchanger at full load. When a CWAF burner operates at a
reduced input rate (i.e., part load), the ratio of heat exchanger
surface area to burner input rate is increased (in comparison to
operation at full load), which theoretically should increase the
efficiency of the CWAF compared to operating at full load, if other
aspects of operation are consistent. However, depending on the air-fuel
ratio or other factors impacting combustion efficiency, the combustion
efficiency could decrease, and therefore, the change in performance,
including whether efficiency is improved or reduced at part-load, could
vary from model to model. Therefore, CWAF part-load performance has the
potential to be substantively different from full-load performance and
including part-load performance in the measurement of CWAF efficiency
would allow the efficiency metric to account for this potential
difference and be more representative. To provide for measured test
results that are more representative of the average use cycle of CWAFs
that are two-stage and modulating burner units (i.e., CWAFs that
operate at less than full load), DOE proposes to include a part-load
measurement in the test procedure proposed at newly proposed appendix
B. DOE has tentatively determined that including a part-load test
procedure within the DOE test procedure would better capture how CWAFs
operate in the field and would be more representative of the
performance of CWAFs during an average use cycle, particularly for
models that have two or more stages of heating. Therefore, DOE is
proposing to include both part-load and full-load operation tests in
the newly proposed appendix B.
Specifically, DOE proposes to require that, for two-stage or
modulating burner models, the flue loss of the unit under test be
determined as specified in section 2 of appendix A (formerly 10 CFR
431.76(c)) at both the maximum and minimum input rates on the nameplate
of the unit. The jacket loss (as described in section III.C.1 of this
document) would be determined at the maximum input rate and optionally
be determined at the minimum input rate. If the jacket loss were
determined only at the maximum input rate, it would be assigned an
equivalent value at the minimum input rate. TE2 would then be
calculated as the average of the efficiencies determined at both the
maximum and minimum input rates using the flue loss and jacket loss
determined at each input rate.
Averaging the performance at the maximum and minimum input rate
weights both full-load and part-load CWAF operation equally (i.e.,
representing CWAF operation at full load 50 percent of the time and
part load 50 percent of the time). DOE considered the relationship
between full-load operation and part-load operation presented in the
comments from NEEA. However, the 10 to 20 percent estimate of operation
at full load referenced by NEEA was based on data for climate regions
represented by Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. DOE has tentatively
determined that operating conditions represented by these climate zones
are not representative of the United States, which includes more
temperate climate zones.
DOE also considered relying on the part-load and full-load burner
operating hour calculations for two-stage and modulating furnaces
specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. However, DOE
tentatively determined that this approach would not be representative
because the calculations specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
2017 include assumptions that are specific to residential furnaces
(e.g., national average heating load hours) that may not be
representative for CWAFs. For example, CWAFs may operate more
frequently during business hours, whereas a residential furnace may
operate more frequently during off-business hours when people are more
likely to be at home.
DOE tentatively finds that CWAFs spend a substantive amount of time
in part-load. Absent nationally representative data or information to
support weighting factors for full-load and part-load performance that
are more representative of an average use cycle, DOE has tentatively
determined that weighting both equally is appropriate at this time,
however DOE seeks comment on this tentative determination.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test procedure
to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also seeks
comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging performance at
the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any related data. DOE
also requests comment on alternate weighting values, including those
discussed, that may be more nationally representative of an
[[Page 10739]]
average use, along with any relevant data.
D. Electrical Energy Consumption
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the DOE test procedure for
CWAFs does not include any measurement of electrical consumption in its
determination of the efficiency of CWAFs, including electrical
consumption of blowers/fans, controls, or other auxiliary electrical
consumption. 85 FR 26626, 26632. DOE explained that CWAFs are typically
part of a single package that also includes air-conditioning equipment,
and that the test method and metrics for commercial air-conditioning
and heating equipment (i.e., integrated energy efficiency ratio
(``IEER'')) accounts for the electrical consumption of the blower; as
such, the electrical consumption of the blower has not been included in
the CWAF test method. Id. DOE noted that any auxiliary electrical
consumption associated only with the furnace operation when heating is
not accounted for in any metric. Id.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether it should
consider including the electrical consumption of CWAFs in the CWAF
efficiency metric or test procedure, as well as on the merits and
burdens of such approach. Id. DOE also asked for comment on which
components' electrical consumption would be appropriate to include,
noting that the electrical consumption of the CWAF blower is typically
factored into other commercial equipment efficiency metrics and test
procedures. Id.
ASAP, the CA IOUs, and NEEA recommended that DOE account for
electrical consumption of the CWAF. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2; ASAP, No.
5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) More specifically, ASAP urged DOE to
ensure that all electrical consumption associated with CWAFs (including
CWAF auxiliary electrical consumption) is captured in either the CWAF
test procedure or the test procedure for CUACs. Specifically, regarding
auxiliary electrical consumption, ASAP stated that capturing auxiliary
electrical consumption would better reflect the efficiency of CWAFs
during a representative average use cycle, thus providing better
information to purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP also stated that
the term sheet from the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal
Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') working group for CUACs and CWAFs
contained a recommendation that DOE amend the test procedure for CUACs
to better capture total fan energy use, including the energy use
associated with the supply fan operation when the unit is in heating
mode. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also noted that the ASRAC term
sheet includes a recommendation to update the CUAC test procedure to
``better represent total fan energy use, including considering (a)
alternative external static pressures; and (b) operation other than
mechanical cooling and heating.'' (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No.
8 at pp. 2-3) Similarly, NEEA stated that electrical energy should be
considered in total energy consumption in all operating modes, citing
that RTUs spend the majority of their time in ventilation mode, and
that electrical energy consumption of an RTU is 4 to 11 percent of
total seasonal energy consumption. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) Additionally,
NEEA stated that the current CWAF test procedure does not capture many
energy efficient features that are currently available on the market
and, therefore, does not effectively allow manufacturers to distinguish
more efficient equipment.\25\ NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider a
calculation-based test procedure to include other energy using
components and operating modes. (NEEA, No. 10 at pp. 3-4) DOE also
received comment from the Joint Advocates in response to the May 2020
ECS RFI, recommending DOE amend the CWAF test procedure to capture
auxiliary electrical consumption. (Joint Advocates, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0023 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ NEEA stated that these efficient components include low
leak dampers, improved insulation or thermally broken insulation,
variable speed fans, economizing capability, improved controls,
demand control ventilation, modulating heat/high turndown furnaces,
and heat recovery. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI, Carrier, and Trane recommended against including the
electrical consumption of CWAFs in the efficiency metric or test
procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 4
at p. 3) AHRI stated that the electrical energy consumption of CWAF
components is minimal compared to the fossil fuel energy used for
heating. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane explained that combustion fan
motor wattage is very small as a percentage of these commercial
furnaces (Trane, No. 9 at p. 4) More specifically, AHRI stated that the
energy consumption of a combustion fan is a fraction of a percent of
the total energy consumption. Carrier similarly asserted that the power
draw of the inducer fan used to create the draft through the furnace is
minimal compared to the energy of combustion. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3)
AHRI and Trane asserted that the extra burden from retesting and
certifying to a new metric is not worth adding electrical consumption
into a new efficiency metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p.
4) AHRI and Carrier noted that CWAFs are often sold as part of a
packaged unit (i.e., within a CUAC), and that the blower and fans are
included in the performance measurement of the CUAC. (AHRI, No. 7 at p.
6; Carrier No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI also noted that the total air-
conditioning hours are far greater than the total heating hours. (AHRI,
No. 7 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3)
DOE agrees with stakeholders that CWAFs are typically installed
within a CUAC, and that the energy consumption of the supply air fan is
captured in the current CUAC test procedure. DOE notes that the energy
consumption of the supply air fan during furnace-only operation is not
captured within the CUAC test procedure; however, DOE has tentatively
determined that such energy consumption would be better addressed in a
future amendment to the CUAC test procedure, rather than also
integrating supply fan consumption into the CWAF test procedure. This
approach would allow for the supply air fan's energy consumption to be
captured in a single test procedure. Similarly, DOE notes that many of
the components that were referenced by NEEA are related to CUAC
performance. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that these
components would be better addressed a future CUAC test procedure
amendment. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined not to include
supply fan energy consumption in the CWAF metric.
DOE also considered whether to include the electrical energy
consumption of other auxiliary components of CWAFs within the DOE test
procedure. In a final rule published on May 4, 2016, amending the
energy conservation standards for CWAFs, DOE analyzed the auxiliary
energy consumption of CWAFs, finding that on average, auxiliary power
consumption for the draft inducer was 100 W for gas-fired CWAFs and 220
W for oil-fired CWAFs. (See section 7B.3 of the Final Rule TSD, EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0021-0050.) DOE also estimated the power consumption of
other auxiliary components (e.g., 25 W for spark ignition). Id. This
auxiliary power consumption, as compared to the fossil fuel energy
input rate, represents a fraction of a percent of the total energy
consumption of a CWAF. As such, improvements in electrical power
consumption, if integrated into TE, would have a negligible impact on
the measured energy efficiency of a CWAF. DOE has tentatively
determined that incorporating electrical consumption into the
measurement of CWAF
[[Page 10740]]
efficiency would not substantially improve the representativeness of
the test procedure and would increase testing burden. DOE also notes
that including electrical consumption in the determination of CWAF
efficiency would be a significant deviation from how CWAF efficiency is
currently measured, for which DOE must demonstrate ``clear and
convincing evidence'' that such change would more fully comply with the
requirements of EPCA. Because DOE has tentatively concluded it is
unlikely that inclusion of electrical energy in the TE metric would
impact the thermal efficiency rating, DOE tentatively concludes that
such a change would not meet the clear and convincing threshold
established by DOE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to update the CWAF
test procedure to include electrical consumption.
E. Other Test Procedure Updates and Clarifications
1. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Multiple Vent Hoods
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that neither the DOE test procedure
nor the ANSI Z21.47 test procedure specifies how to perform the flue
temperature measurement if a unit has multiple vent hoods, and that
models are currently available on the market with multiple vent hoods.
85 FR 26626, 26631. DOE notes that in this NOPR, as in the May 2020
RFI, DOE's references to a ``vent hood'' are synonymous with a ``vent
pipe.''
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on how CWAFs with more
than one vent hood are currently tested and whether it should consider
adding provisions in the DOE test procedures to address measuring the
flue gas temperature of a unit with multiple vent hoods. DOE also asked
how best to measure flue gas temperature in such units. Id.
AHRI stated that the manufacturers' installation instructions
should include information regarding the use of multiple vents and each
vent's functionality. AHRI stated that if the vent hood modules are the
same size, the results are averaged; however, if they are different
sizes, the test results for each vent hood should be adjusted
accordingly before averaging the results. AHRI stated that, for
example, if one vent is intended to exhaust two-thirds of the flue
product and the second is intended to exhaust the remaining one-third,
then this should be specified in the installation instructions, and a
weighted average used to determine the flue gas temperature. (AHRI, No.
7 at p. 5)
Trane stated that DOE should use the instructions in both the
installation operation manuals as well as the supplemental testing
instruction (``STI'') supplied when a model is certified to DOE for
determining how to measure flue gas for models with multiple vent
hoods. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier stated that the procedure it uses for models with multiple
vent hoods is to analyze combustion products and measure flue
temperature separately in each vent hood, and then use the averaged
data of all vents to calculate TE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE tentatively agrees that results should be measured in each vent
hood and weighted proportionally to the size of each vent hood when
calculating TE. For units with multiple vent hoods of the same size,
this approach would result in the measurements being averaged.
Therefore, in order to ensure consistency between tests, DOE is
proposing to add instructions to clarify the test method for models
with multiple vent hoods. DOE proposes that measurements used to
calculate TE (e.g., flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue
gasses), be made separately for each vent hood, and that they are
weighted proportionally to the size of each vent hood when calculating
flue loss. Further, DOE proposes that test requirements, such as
determining when equilibrium conditions occur based on the flue gas
temperature, are determined based these weighted measurements. This
proposal is predicated on the assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
hood size. DOE recognizes that vent hood ``size'' may be measured in
various ways, and therefore is proposing to specify that vent hoods
size would be determined by calculating the outlet face area of the
vent hood. As noted, DOE is proposing this additional procedure for
clarification and to improve test repeatability, as ANSI Z21.47-2021
does not address flue temperature measurements in CWAFs with multiple
vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in the
DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
size of the vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks comment on its proposal
to compare vent hood outlet face areas to determine vent hood size.
2. Flue Temperature Measurement in Models With Vent Space Limitations
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 2.16 of ANSI Z21.47-
2012 and Section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 both specify measuring the
flue gas temperature in the vent pipe using nine individual
thermocouples placed in specific locations; however, these sections do
not provide guidance on how to measure the flue gas temperature if the
vent size constrains the space where the thermocouples are to be placed
to the point that normal operation of the unit is inhibited when nine
thermocouples are installed. 85 FR 26626, 26631-26632. DOE notes this
is also true of Section 5.16 in ANSI Z21.47-2021. In the May 2020 RFI,
DOE noted that a vent may be so small (if, for example, a unit has
multiple vents) that it is not practical to measure the flue gas
temperature using nine thermocouples. DOE also explained that during
testing of one unit with a particularly small vent hood, DOE found that
placing nine \26\ thermocouples was not practical due to space
limitations. 81 FR 26626, 26631-26632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the May 2020 RFI, DOE stated that DOE found that placing
more than four thermocouples for that particular test unit was not
practical due to space limitations. 85 FR 26626, 26632. However,
this was a typographical error; DOE intended to state that placing
nine thermocouples (not more than four) was not practical in this
instance due to space limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on how CWAFs with vent
size constraints are currently tested and whether DOE should consider
adding provisions in the DOE test procedure to address measuring the
flue gas temperature when space limitations preclude the use of nine
thermocouples. DOE also asked how best to measure flue gas temperature
in such units. 81 FR 26626, 26632.
AHRI stated that the manufacturer's test instructions may specify
that the number of thermocouples be limited due to space constraints
within the draft hood. In such instances, the testing laboratory will
follow the manufacturer's test instructions for set-up. (AHRI, No. 7 at
p. 6) Trane stated that it believes the manufacturer will communicate
how measurements were performed either in the STI or installation
manual to achieve the performance metric rating that is certified, and
that DOE should follow those instructions. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier acknowledged that, at times, it is impossible to fit nine
thermocouples adequately in a smaller vent and stated that it uses the
procedure from ANSI/ASHRAE 103, which specifies the number of
thermocouples depending on
[[Page 10741]]
the diameter of the vent. Carrier further stated that ANSI/ASHRAE 103
requires five thermocouples for vents 2 inches in diameter and smaller,
nine thermocouples for vents greater than 2 inches in diameter, and 17
thermocouples for a stack measurement. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
In order to ensure consistency and repeatability in the application
of the test method for models with small vent hoods, DOE recognizes the
need to specify how to perform the DOE test procedure when nine
thermocouples do not fit inside the vent hood. Although AHRI and Trane
suggest allowing the manufacturer to specify how the thermocouples
should be installed, this could lead to inconsistent test set-up and
results for models with small vents if manufacturers choose different
approaches for testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to align its test
procedure with ASHRAE 103-2017. More specifically, DOE is proposing to
specify in the DOE test procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired
CWAFs, the flue gas temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood
using nine individual thermocouples when the vent hood is larger than 2
inches in diameter and may optionally be measured using five individual
thermocouples when the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
five thermocouples may optionally be used.
3. Input Rate Tolerance
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that its test procedure for gas-
fired CWAFs references the test method in ANSI Z21.47, and that the
thermal efficiency test in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47 requires that
the test be conducted at normal inlet pressure and at 100 percent of
normal input rate (i.e., the maximum hourly Btu input rating specified
by the manufacturer). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(1). DOE noted that no tolerance
is provided on the input rate in section 2.39, so when taken literally,
this provision could be interpreted to require that the firing rate be
exactly 100 percent of the nominal input rate. DOE further noted that
other types of fossil-fuel-fired equipment such as commercial packaged
boilers, commercial water heaters, residential water heaters,
residential furnaces, and residential boilers require the input rate
during testing to be within 2 percent of the nameplate
input rate. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether industry uses
a tolerance when testing to ANSI Z21.47, and if so, what tolerance is
used. DOE also asked whether a tolerance should be specified for the
input rate during testing of gas-fired CWAFs, and if so, what tolerance
would be appropriate. Id.
Carrier stated that it uses a minor plus-and-minus tolerance on
input rate and that it understands that this approach is not included
in ANSI Z21.47, but it has been used on furnace testing at Carrier for
many years.\27\ (No. 4 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI both commented that
section 5.4.4 \28\ of ANSI Z21.47-2016 includes a 2 percent
tolerance on input rate. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
The CA IOUs recommend including a tolerance of 2 percent of
rated input for gas-fired CWAFs, consistent with the commercial boiler
test methods described in AHRI 1500-2015. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Carrier did not provide a specific value for the tolerance
it uses for CWAF testing.
\28\ DOE understands commenters to have intended to reference
section 5.5.4 as there is no section 5.4.4 in ANSI Z21.47-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that Sections 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 and 5.5.4 of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 both specify a 2 percent tolerance on the
manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating, and that the same
2 percent input rate tolerance is also specified in Section
2.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which is currently incorporated by reference
in the current DOE test procedure. As discussed in section III.B.3 of
this document, DOE is proposing to reference the Sections of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 that correspond to the sections in ANSI Z21.47-2012 that
are currently referenced, including Section 5.5 of ANSI Z21.47-2021.
This proposal, therefore, incorporates Section 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-
2021, which includes the 2 percent tolerance on the
manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating.
4. Flue Loss Determination
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section 5.40 ANSI Z21.47-2021
reference Annex I for the determination of flue loss that is used in
the TE calculation. Annex I includes two methods for determining flue
loss--one method that uses a calculation, and one method that uses
nomographs shown in Figures I.1 and I.2 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. The
nomograph method may only be used when the heating value, specific
gravity, and flue gas CO2 of a CWAF fall within a specified
range.\29\ If these conditions are met, either calculation method may
be used. DOE notes that the option to use either method may result in
issues with repeatability if the determination of flue loss varies when
using each method. Therefore, DOE is proposing in section 4 of appendix
A (formerly 10 CFR 431.76(e)) that the calculation method must be used
when determining flue loss. DOE is proposing use of the calculation
method rather than the nomograph method because the nomograph method is
not applicable for all tests, and the calculation method is likely to
provide better repeatability by eliminating subjective differences in
interpreting the nomograph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Heating value for natural gas or propane must be 970-1100
Btu/ft\3\ or 2466-2542 Btu/ft\3\, respectively. Specific gravity for
natural gas or propane must be 0.57-0.70 or 1.522-15.74,
respectively. Ultimate carbon dioxide for natural gas or propane
must be 11.7-12.2% or 13.73-13.82%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation method
specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when determining flue
loss, and not the nomograph method.
F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, and Other Topics
1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CWAF for determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-
date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE
test procedure, and by providing additional detail for the test setup
for models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having
space limitations. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed
amendments for determining TE would not be unduly burdensome for
manufacturers to conduct, and that the proposed test procedures for
this equipment are consistent with the industry test procedure updates.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the test
procedure for determining TE would improve the representativeness,
accuracy, and reproducibility of the test results and would not be
unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE expects that the
proposed test procedure in appendix A for measuring and TE would not
increase testing costs.
DOE also is proposing to establish a new TE2 metric and establish a
new appendix B, which would include the test procedure for determining
TE2. DOE estimates that the additional test cost due to the additional
part-load test and jacket loss test required for the TE2
[[Page 10742]]
metric would be $2,200, compared to the current DOE test procedure,
which DOE estimates to be $4,200 at a third-party laboratory (i.e., a
total estimated cost of $6,400 per tested unit for the amended TE2 test
procedure). Therefore, assuming two units are tested per basic
model,\30\ DOE estimates the testing cost associated with the newly
proposed appendix B test procedure to be $12,800 per basic model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Per the sampling requirements specified at 10 CFR
429.11(b), manufacturers are required to test at least two units to
determine the rating for a basic model, except if only one unit of
the basic model is produced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 10 CFR 429.41, CWAF manufacturers may elect to
use an alternative efficiency determination method (``AEDM'') to rate
models for the TE2 metric, which significantly reduces testing costs to
industry. DOE estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop and
validate an AEDM to determine TE2 for CWAF equipment to be $17,300. DOE
estimates a cost of $46 per basic model for determining energy
efficiency using a validated AEDM.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ DOE's estimated initial cost to develop and validate an
AEDM includes (1) 80 hours to develop the AEDM based on existing
simulation tools; (2) an additional 16 hours to validate the AEDM
for two basic models at the cost of an engineering calibration
technician wage of $46 per hour; and (3) the cost of third-party
testing of two units per validation class (as required in 10 CFR
429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per basic model cost
to determine efficiency using an AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic
model at the cost of an engineering calibration technician wage of
$46 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed
appendix B test procedure and TE2 calculation would alter the measured
energy efficiency of a CWAF.
As previously discussed, the proposed test procedure provisions
regarding TE2 would not be mandatory unless and until compliance is
required with amended energy conservation standards that rely on TE2.
Because DOE is not referencing a prevailing industry test procedure for
determination of TE2, DOE expects that the updated DOE test procedure
in appendix B would increase the testing burden on CWAF manufacturers
if use of appendix B were required in the future. However, DOE has
tentatively determined that the test procedure amendments, if
finalized, would not require manufacturers to redesign any of the
covered equipment, would not require changes to how the equipment is
manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the equipment.
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the test
procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to DOE's
estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the
testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as
compared to the current test procedure.
2. Harmonization With Industry Standards
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards
as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly
burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect
the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or
estimated operating costs of that product during a representative
average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part
430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA
statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make appropriate
modifications to the DOE test procedure through the rulemaking process.
The current test procedures for CWAF at 10 CFR 431.76 incorporates
by reference UL 727-2006 for testing oil-fired CWAFs, HI BTS-2000 for
performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired
CWAFs, ANSI Z21.47-2012 for testing gas-fired CWAFs, and ANSI/ASHRAE
103-2007 for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. As discussed, the
proposed amendments to the DOE test procedure for determining TE would
update the references to the incorporated industry testing standards.
Also as discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt a new metric, TE2, for
CWAFs. There is no industry testing standard that provides for
determining TE2. However, the test procedure provisions that provide
the measured inputs for determining TE2 rely on the same industry
testing standards DOE is proposing to reference for determining TE.
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed
updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test
procedure for CWAFs.
DOE recognizes that adopting industry standards with modifications
imposes a burden on industry (i.e., manufacturers face increased costs
if the DOE modifications require different testing equipment or
facilities). DOE seeks comment on the degree to which the DOE test
procedure should consider and be harmonized further with the most
recent relevant industry standards for CWAFs, and whether there are any
changes to the Federal test method that would provide additional
benefits to the public. DOE also requests comment on the benefits and
burdens of, or any other comments regarding adopting of, any industry/
voluntary consensus-based or other appropriate test procedure, without
modification.
G. Compliance Date
EPCA prescribes that if DOE amends a test procedure, all
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in
accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
To the extent the modified test procedure proposed in this document
is required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency
standards, use of the modified test procedure, if finalized, would not
be required until the compliance date of updated standards.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (``E.O.'')
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive
order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in
OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure
rulemaking.
[[Page 10743]]
1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
CWAFs in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \32\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This
equipment includes CWAFs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must
amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such
amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAFs, to
determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be
unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated
operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C.
63146314(a)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of CWAFs, the Small Business Administration
(``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those entities
classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE
used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any
small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13
CFR part 121. The equipment covered by this rule are classified under
North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code
333415,\33\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In
13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry
description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--
table-size-standards (Last accessed July 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE's analysis relied on
publicly available databases to identify potential small businesses
that manufacture equipment covered in this rulemaking. DOE utilized the
California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database
System (``MAEDbS''),\34\ EPA's ENERGY STAR Database,\35\ and the DOE's
Certification Compliance Database (``CCD'') \36\ to identify to
manufacturers. DOE identified eight original equipment manufacturers
(``OEMs'') of CWAFs affected by this rulemaking. DOE screened out
companies that do not meet the definition of a ``small business'' or
are foreign-owned and operated. Of these eight OEMs, DOE identified one
small, domestic OEM for consideration. DOE used subscription-based
business information tools to determine headcount and revenue of the
small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ MAEDbS can be accessed at
www.cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(Last accessed July 15, 2021).
\35\ ENERGY STAR-certified products can be found in the ENERGY
STAR database accessed at www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/certified-commercial-water-heaters/results (Last accessed July 15,
2021).
\36\ Certified equipment in the CCD are listed by product class
and can be accessed at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed July 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
CWAFs when determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-
date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE
test procedure, and to provide additional detail for the test setup for
models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having space
limitations. DOE proposes to update appendix A (formerly 10 CFR
431.76), ``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency
of commercial warm air furnaces'' as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006)
for testing oil-fired CWAFs;
(2) Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-
2000) for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI
Z21.47-2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs;
(4) Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/
ASHRAE 103-2007) for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(5) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-
2018 (i.e., NFPA 97-2003), AHRI 1500-2015 (i.e., ASTM D396-14a, ASTM
D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10), and ANSI Z21.47-2021
(i.e., ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004)) that are necessary in
performing the DOE test procedure;
(6) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units
with vent hoods that are 2 inches in diameter or smaller; and
DOE also proposes to establish a new test procedure and metric for
``TE2'' in a new appendix B to 10 CFR 431.72, which manufacturers could
use to make voluntary representations, and which would be mandatory
only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy
conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
The proposed new TE2 metric accounts for flue losses in a manner
identical to the existing TE metric, and accounts for jacket losses and
part-load operation.
Items (1) through (5) incorporate by reference the most up-to-date
versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE test
procedure. Item (6) includes clarifications intended to improve
consistency and reproducibility of test procedure results. The industry
test procedure ANSI Z21.47 does not specify how to test units with
multiple vent hoods or units with vent hoods that are too small to fit
the required number of thermocouples. DOE is proposing to add
clarifications and guidance to address these scenarios. DOE has
tentatively determined that these proposed amendments in this NOPR
would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of
the test results and would not increase third-party laboratory testing
costs.
In item (7), DOE proposes to adopt appendix B, which includes the
relevant test procedure requirements for measuring TE2, an efficiency
metric proposed by DOE which incorporates jacket loss and CWAF
performance at reduced firing rates. The proposed NOPR amendments would
not require
[[Page 10744]]
manufacturers to re-rate models, as DOE energy conservation standards
do not currently require TE2 ratings. As such, the test procedure
amendments do not result in industry costs.
Should DOE adopt energy conservation standards based on the TE2
metric in proposed appendix B in the future, DOE anticipates
manufacturers would incur costs to re-rate models as result of the
standards. DOE expects the proposed test procedure in appendix B for
measuring TE2 would increase testing costs compared to the current DOE
test procedure. The current DOE test procedure costs approximately
$4,200 per unit for third-party laboratory testing. DOE estimates the
cost for third-party laboratory testing according to the proposed
appendix B to be $6,400 per unit.
If CWAF manufacturers conduct testing to certify a basic model, two
units are required to be tested per basic model. The test cost,
according to the proposed amendments, would be $12,800 per basic
model.\37\ However, manufacturers are not required to perform
laboratory testing on all basic models, as CWAF manufacturers may elect
to use AEDMs.\38\ An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical tool
that predicts the performance of non-tested basic models. These
computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly developed, can
provide a means to predict the energy usage or efficiency
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or
equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. DOE
estimates the cost to develop and validate an AEDM for CWAFs to be
$17,300, which includes testing of two models per validation class.
Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of approximately $46 per basic model
for determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The cost to test one unit is $6,400. The cost to test two
units is $12,800.
\38\ In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates the range of potential costs for the one domestic,
small OEM. When developing cost estimates for the small OEM, DOE
considers the cost to develop the AEDM simulation tool, the costs to
validate the AEDM through testing, and the cost to rate basic models
using the AEDM.
DOE research indicates that the one small manufacturer has average
annual revenues of $3.3 million. DOE understands this OEM to
manufacture four basic models. Therefore, DOE estimates that the
associated re-rating costs for this manufacturer to be approximately
$17,400 when making use of AEDMs. The cost for this small manufacturer
to re-rate all basic models is estimated to be less than 1 percent of
annual revenue.
DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE identified.
DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small manufacturer
may incur.
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small
businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic
models. The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CWAF
models. Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost to physically test all
CWAF basic models for the identified small manufacturer to be
approximately $51,200.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CWAFs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including CWAFs. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for CWAFs. DOE has determined that this rule
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed
[[Page 10745]]
rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 4316(b);
42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction,
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law,
the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order
12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined this
proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and
determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate,
nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or
more in any year, so these requirements do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of CWAFs is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-
[[Page 10746]]
91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy
Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; ``FEAA'')
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards
on competition.
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CWAF would
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: UL 727-2018, AHRI 1500-2015 ANSI
Z21.47-2021, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. DOE has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was
developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation,
comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the Attorney General
and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the
following standards:
(1) UL 727-2018. This test standard provides instruction for how to
test oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters
Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW. Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-
5500 or online at: standardscatalog.ul.com.
(2) ANSI Z21.47-2021. This test standard provides instruction for
how to test gas-fired CWAFs.
(3) ASHRAE 103-2017. This test standard provides instruction for
how to test residential furnaces and boilers, which DOE is referencing
for the purpose of providing instruction for testing condensing gas-
fired CWAFs.
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004). This standard is also
referenced as ANSI Z21.47-2021, and it specifies thermocouple
requirements for when testing gas-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 and ANSI/ASME PTC
19.3-1974 (R2004), can be obtained from 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor,
New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at: webstore.ansi.org.
(5) AHRI 1500-2015. This test standard provides instruction for how
to test perform fuel oil analysis and for how to calculate flue loss of
oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from 2111 Wilson Blvd.,
Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
ahrinet.org.
(6) NFPA 97-2003. This standard is referenced in UL 727-2018, and
it provides definitions for the terms combustible and noncombustible.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained form 1 Batterymarch Park,
Quincy, MA 02169-7471, (617) 770-3000 or by going online at:
www.nfpa.org.
(7) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17. This standard is referenced in UL 727-
2018, and it specifies thermocouple requirements for when testing oil-
fired CWAFs.
(8) ASTM D396-14a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains general fuel oil requirements.
(9) ASTM D240-09. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil heating value requirements.
(10) ASTM D4809-09a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil hydrogen and carbon content requirements.
(11) ASTM D5291-10. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015,
and it contains fuel oil density requirements.
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a,
ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, can be obtained from 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by
going online at: www.astm.org.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the DATES
section at the beginning of this document. If no participants register
for the webinar, it will be cancelled. Webinar registration
information, participant instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on
DOE's website: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=49&action=viewlive Participants are
responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar
software.
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons
that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to
make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect,
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone
number where they can be reached.
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
C. Conduct of the Webinar
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this
rulemaking, allow
[[Page 10747]]
time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all
interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this
rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general
statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion
of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The
official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper
conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of
this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript
from the transcribing reporter.
D. Participation in the Webinar
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on a cover letter. Include your first
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it
does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked
confidential including all the information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked non-confidential with the
information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential status of the information and
treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is
an outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE
seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003
in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
(2) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method
specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO2
using a measured O2 value. DOE also seeks comment on its
proposal to establishestablish section 3 of appendix A (i.e., an update
of 10 CFR 431.76(d) of the current DOE test procedure) to accommodate
the option to calculate CO2 using a measured O2
value.
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section
5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three
burner characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or
burden of the thermal efficiency test.
(4) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test
procedure (i.e., appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which
would generally adopt the same changes proposed for the current test
procedure at appendix A and account for flue losses in the same manner
as the current
[[Page 10748]]
TE metric, but would additionally account for jacket losses and part
load operation.
(5) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be
measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor installation and
designed for indoor installation within an unheated space when
determining TE2 pursuant to newly proposed appendix B, and on its
proposed method for measuring jacket loss. DOE also seeks comment on
its proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs intended for indoor
installation within a heated space would be assumed to be zero, and on
its proposed jacket loss factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor
installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated
space.
(6) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test
procedure to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE
also seeks comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging
performance at the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any
related data. DOE also requests comment on alternate weighting values,
including those discussed, that may be more nationally representative
of an average use, along with any relevant data.
(7) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in
the DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
(8) DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (i.e., mass
flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent hood is proportional to the
size of the vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks comment on its proposal
to compare vent hood outlet face areas to determine vent hood size.
(9) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test
procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas
temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual
thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter,
five thermocouples may optionally be used.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation
method specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when
determining flue loss, and not the nomograph method.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the
test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to
DOE's estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the
testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as
compared to the current test procedure.
(12) DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE
identified. DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small
manufacturer may incur.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February
11, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend
10 CFR part 431 as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.72 by adding, in alphabetical order, a definition
for ``Thermal efficiency two'' to read as follows:
Sec. 431.72 Definitions concerning commercial warm air furnaces.
* * * * *
Thermal efficiency two for a commercial warm air furnace equals 100
percent minus percent flue loss and jacket loss.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 431.75 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.75 Materials incorporated by reference.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at DOE, and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at the
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza
SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, [email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office. For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email:
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. It may be obtained from the following sources:
(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 (``AHRI 1500-2015''), ``Performance Rating
of Commercial Space Heating Boilers'', approved November 28, 2014; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street,
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212) 642-4900 or go to www.ansi.org.
(1) ANSI Z21.47-2021,``Gas-fired Central Furnaces'', approved April
21, 2021; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle NE, Atlanta, Georgia
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: www.ashrae.org.
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (``ASHRAE 103-2017''), ``Method
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers'', approved June 30, 2017; IBR approved
for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
[[Page 10749]]
(d) ASME. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Service Center,
22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007, (973) 882-1170, or go
to www.asme.org.
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) (``ASME PTC 19.3-1974
(R2004)''), ``Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and
Apparatus'', published January 1, 2004; IBR approved for appendices A
and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700,
West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786, or go to www.astm.org/.
(1) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 (``ASTM E230/E230M-17''), ``Standard
Specification for Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for
Standardized Thermocouples'', approved November 1, 2017, IBR approved
for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) ASTM D240-09, ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of
Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter'', approved July 1, 2009;
IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(3) ASTM D396-14a, ``Standard Specification for Fuel Oils,''
approved on October 1, 2014; IBR approved for appendices A and B to
this subpart.
(4) ASTM D4809-09a, ``Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion
of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)'';
IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(5) ASTM D5291-10, ``Standard Test Methods for Instrumental
Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products
and Lubricants'', approved on May 1, 2010; IBR approved for appendices
A and B to this subpart.
(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection Association, 11 Tracy Drive,
Avon, MA 02322, 1-800-344-3555, or go to www.nfpa.org.
(1) NFPA 97-2003, ``Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to
Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances''; IBR approved for
appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road,
Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or go to: www.ul.com.
(1) UL 727 (``UL 727-2018''), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired
Central Furnaces'', Tenth Edition, published January 31, 2018; IBR
approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
0
4. Revise Sec. 431.76 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.76 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.
(a) Scope. This section prescribes the test requirements used to
measure the energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces with a
rated maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more.
(b) Testing and calculations. (1) Thermal efficiency. Test in
accordance with appendix A to subpart D of this part when making
representations of thermal efficiency.
(2) Thermal efficiency two. Test in accordance with appendix B to
subpart D of this part when making representations of thermal
efficiency two.
0
5. Add appendix A to subpart D of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency)
Note: On and after [date 360 days following publication of a
final rule], any representations made with respect to the energy use
or efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces must be made in
accordance with the results of testing pursuant to this section. At
that time, manufacturers must use the relevant procedures specified
in this appendix, which reference ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017,
UL 727-2018, or AHRI 1500-2015. On and after [effective date 30 days
following publication of a final rule] and prior to [date 360 days
following publication of a final rule], manufacturers must test
commercial warm air furnaces in accordance with this appendix or 10
CFR 431.76 (revised as of January 1, 2020). DOE notes that, because
testing under this section is required as of [date 360 days
following publication of a final rule], manufacturers may wish to
begin using this amended test procedure immediately. Any
representations made with respect to the energy use or efficiency of
such commercial warm air furnaces must be made in accordance with
whichever version is selected.
1. Incorporation by reference. DOE incorporates by reference in
Sec. 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-
2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-
17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA
97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021,
ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the
enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47-2021
1.1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and
7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of this
appendix;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of this
appendix; 1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of this
appendix;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103-2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 3.2 of this appendix;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1
of this appendix.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 5.1 of this appendix.
1.3 UL 727-2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44,
45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of this
appendix;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of
this appendix.
1.4 AHRI 1500-2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section
2.2 of this appendix; 1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of
the AHRI 1500-2015of section 4.2 of this appendix.
2. Test set-up and Testing. Where this section prescribes use of
ANSI Z21.47-2021 or UL 727-2018, perform only the procedures
pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency, as
specified in this section.
2.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test set-up,
including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurements for determining thermal efficiency are as specified in
section 2.3 of this appendix, and the following sections of ANSI
Z21.47-2021: 5.1 (General, including ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) as
referenced in Section 5.1.4), 5.2 (Basic test arrangements), 5.3
(Test ducts and plenums), 5.4 (Test gases), 5.5 (Test pressures and
burner adjustments), 5.6 (Static pressure and air flow adjustments),
5.40 (Thermal efficiency), and 7.2.1 (Basic test arrangements for
direct vent central furnaces). If section 2.3 of this appendix and
ANSI Z21.47-2021 have conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when testing units with vent hoods
two inches in diameters or smaller), follow the provisions in
section 2.3. The thermal efficiency test must be conducted only at
the normal inlet test pressure, as specified in Section 5.5.1 of
ANSI Z21.47-2021, and at the maximum hourly Btu input rating
specified by the manufacturer for the product being tested.
2.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test setup,
including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, and
measurement for measuring thermal efficiency is as specified in
section 2.3 of this appendix and the following sections of UL 727-
2018: 2 (Units of Measurement), 3 (Glossary, except that the
definitions for combustible and non-combustible in Sections 3.11 and
3.27 shall be as referenced in NFPA 97-2003), 37 (General), 38 and
39 (Test Installation), 40 (Instrumentation, except 40.4 and 40.6.2
through 40.6.7 which are not required for the thermal efficiency
test, and including ASTM E230/E230M-17 as referenced in Sections
40.6), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test--Burner and
Furnace), 43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control
[[Page 10750]]
Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 46 (Air Flow,
Downflow or Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 2.3 of this
appendix and UL 727 have conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of
thermocouples that should be used when testing units with vent hoods
two inches in diameters or smaller), follow the provisions in
section 2.3 of this appendix. Conduct a fuel oil analysis for
heating value, hydrogen content, carbon content, pounds per gallon,
and American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity as specified in
Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015, including the applicable
provisions of ASTM D240-09, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, and ASTM
D396-14a, as referenced. The steady-state combustion conditions,
specified in Section 42.1 of UL 727-2018, are attained when
variations of not more than 5 [deg]F in the measured flue gas
temperature occur for three consecutive readings taken 15 minutes
apart.
2.3 Additional test set up requirements for gas-fired and oil-
fired commercial warm air furnaces
2.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas and oil-fired commercial warm
air furnaces with flue vents that are two inches in diameter or
smaller. For units with vent hoods (i.e., flue outlet hoods) two
inches in diameter or smaller, the flue gas temperatures may
optionally be measured using five individual thermocouples, instead
of nine thermocouples.
2.3.2 Procedure for flue gas measurements when testing units
with multiple vent hoods. For units that have multiple vent hoods
record flue gas measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature,
CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each individual
vent hood and calculate a weighted-average value based on the
readings of all vent hoods. To determine the weighted average for
each measurement, first calculate the face area of each vent hood.
Then multiply the ratio of each individual vent hood's face area to
the total face area of all vent hoods (i.e., the face area of each
individual vent hood divided by the total vent hood area) by that
vent hood's respective component measurement and the sum of all of
the products for all of the vent hoods to determine the weighted-
average values. Use the weighted-average values to determine flue
loss, and whether equilibrium conditions are met before the official
test period.
3. Additional test measurements
3.1 Determination of flue CO2 (carbon dioxide) or
O2 (oxygen) for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces.
In addition to the flue temperature measurement specified in Section
40.6.8 of UL 727-2018, locate one or two sampling tubes within six
inches downstream from the flue temperature probe (as indicated on
Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018). If an open end tube is used, it must
project into the flue one-third of the chimney connector diameter.
If other methods of sampling the flue gas are used place the
sampling tube so as to obtain an average sample. There must be no
air leak between the temperature probe and the sampling tube
location. Collect the flue gas sample at the same time the flue gas
temperature is recorded. The CO2 or O2
concentration of the flue gas must be as specified by the
manufacturer for the product being tested, with a tolerance of
0.1 percent. Determine the flue CO2 or
O2 using an instrument with a reading error no greater
than 0.1 percent.
3.2 Procedure for the measurement of condensate for a gas-fired
condensing commercial warm air furnace. The test procedure for the
measurement of the condensate from the flue gas under steady-state
operation must be conducted as specified in Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8,
and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 under the maximum rated input conditions.
This condensate measurement must be conducted for an additional 30
minutes of steady-state operation after completion of the steady-
state thermal efficiency test specified in Section 2.1 of this
appendix.
4. Calculation of thermal efficiency
4.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Use the calculation
procedure specified in Section 5.40, Thermal efficiency, of ANSI
Z21.47-2021. When determining the flue loss that is used in the
calculation of thermal efficiency, the calculation method specified
in Annex I shall be used.
4.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Calculate the
percent flue loss (in percent of heat input rate) by following the
procedure specified in Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the
AHRI 1500-2015. The thermal efficiency must be calculated as:
Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent - flue loss (in percent).
5. Procedure for the calculation of the additional heat gain and
heat loss, and adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a
condensing commercial warm air furnace.
5.1 Calculate the latent heat gain from the condensation of the
water vapor in the flue gas, and calculate heat loss due to the flue
condensate down the drain, as specified in Sections 11.3.7.1 and
11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017, with the exception that in the equation
for the heat loss due to hot condensate flowing down the drain in
Section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor temperature of 70 [deg]F and
the temperature term TOA must be replaced by the measured room
temperature as specified in Section 5.2.8 of ANSI Z21.47-2021.
5.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency for condensing
furnaces. Adjust the thermal efficiency as calculated in section 4.1
of this appendix by adding the latent gain, expressed in percent,
from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and
subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue condensate down the
drain), also expressed in percent, both as calculated in section 5.1
of this appendix, to obtain the thermal efficiency of a condensing
furnace.
0
6. Add appendix B to subpart D of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431-Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal
Efficiency Two)
Note: Representations with respect to energy use or efficiency
of this equipment, including compliance certifications, must be made
in terms of thermal efficiency (TE), as determined by the test
procedure specified in appendix A to this subpart. In addition,
manufacturers may optionally make representations of energy use or
efficiency of this equipment using thermal efficiency 2 (TE2) as
determined using this appendix [on or after effective date 30 days
after publication of final rule].
1. Incorporation by Reference. DOE incorporates by reference in
Sec. 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-
2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-
17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA
97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021,
ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the
enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as
follows:
1.1 ANSI Z21.47-2021
1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and
7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of appendix A
to this subpart;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of
appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to
this subpart;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4 of appendix A to this
subpart;
1.1.5 Annex J as specified in sections 2.2 and 2.6 of this
appendix.
1.2 ASHRAE 103-2017
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 3.2 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1
of appendix A to this subpart.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as
specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.3 UL 727-2018
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44,
45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of appendix A
to this subpart;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of
appendix A to this subpart.
1.4 AHRI 1500-2015
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section
2.2 to appendix A of this subpart;
1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500-
2015 of section 4.2 of appendix A to this subpart.
2. Testing
2.1 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of
appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the maximum
nameplate input rate (i.e., full load). Calculate thermal efficiency
TE using the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A
to this subpart.
2.2 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or
indoor installation
[[Page 10751]]
within an unheated space (i.e., isolated combustion systems),
determine the jacket loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI
Z21.47-2021 while the unit is operating at the maximum nameplate
input.
2.3 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For
commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor
installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 1.7. For all
other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air
furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but
not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for
resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss
determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.3 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to
determine the full load efficiency.
2.5 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of
appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the
nameplate minimum input rate (i.e., part load). Calculate TE using
the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A to this
subpart.
2.6 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for
outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are
weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or
indoor installation within an unheated space (i.e., isolated
combustion systems), determine the jacket loss using Section 5.40
and Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2021 while the unit is operating at the
minimum nameplate input. Alternatively, the jacket loss determined
in section 2.2 of this appendix at the maximum nameplate input may
be used.
2.7 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for
indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For
commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor
installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket
loss determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 1.7. For all
other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air
furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but
not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for
resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss
determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.7 of this
appendix from the TE determined in section 2.5 of this appendix to
determine the part load efficiency.
2.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of the full-load and
part-load.
[FR Doc. 2022-03484 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P