Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77017 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0002] 

RIN 1904–AE31 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Direct 

Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 

prescribes energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products, including direct heating 

equipment (DHE). EPCA also requires 

the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 

periodically determine whether morestringent, amended standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would result 

in significant energy savings. After 

carefully considering the available 

market and technical information for 

these products, DOE has tentatively 

concluded in this document that morestringent standards for DHE would not 

save a significant amount of energy. 

Further, depending on the product 

class, more-stringent standards for DHE 

would not be technologically feasible or 

economically justified. As such, DOE 

has tentatively determined that 

amended energy conservation standards 

are not needed. DOE requests comment 

on this proposed determination, as well 

as the associated analyses and results. 

DATES: 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Monday, January 25, 2021, from 12:00 

p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before February 16, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0002, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: DHE2019STD0002@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0002 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a compact 

disc (CD), in which case it is not 

necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza 

SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, 

please submit all items on a CD, in 

which case it is not necessary to include 

printed copies. 

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V (Public Participation) of this 

document. 

Docket: The docket for this activity, 

which includes Federal Register 

notices, public meeting attendee lists 

and transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure, may not be publicly 

available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0002. 

The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for further information 

on how to submit comments through 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dr. Stephanie Johnson, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Rulemaking History 

1. Current Standards 

2. April 2010 Final Rule 

a. Unvented Heaters 

b. Vented Heaters 

3. October 2016 Final Determination 

a. Unvented Heaters 

b. Vented Heaters 

4. February 2019 Request for Information 

5. Process Rule 

6. Gas Industry Petition for Rulemaking 

III. General Discussion 

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage 

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions 

a. Unvented Heaters 

b. Vented Heaters 

2. Product Classes 

B. Analysis for This Notification of 

Proposed Determination 

1. Overview of the Analysis 

a. Technological Feasibility 

b. Energy Savings 

c. Cost-Effectiveness 

d. Further Considerations 

2. Unvented Heaters 

3. Vented Heaters 

a. Market Assessment 

b. Technology Options for Efficiency 

Improvement 

c. Screening Analysis 

d. Engineering Analysis 

e. Energy Use Analysis 

f. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

g. Shipments 

h. National Energy Savings 

i. Manufacturer Impacts 

4. Other Issues 

a. Fuel Switching and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

b. Environmental Analysis, Market 

Failures, and Market-Based Compliance 

c. Product Labeling 

d. Standard Level Recommendations 

C. Proposed Determination 

1. Unvented Heaters 

2. Vented Heaters 

a. Technological Feasibility 

b. Cost-Effectiveness 

c. Significant Energy Savings 

d. Further Considerations 

e. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

f. Summary 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 

and 13777 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77018 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through America’s Water 

Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270 

(Oct. 23, 2018). 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

I. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

M. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedures for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, as amended 

(EPCA or the Act),2 established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309) 

These products include direct heating 

equipment, the subject of this 

notification of proposed determination 

(NOPD). (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(9)) 

DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to 

the statutory requirement in EPCA that 

not later than three years after issuance 

of a final determination not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 

‘‘Direct heating equipment’’ is defined 

at 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

430.2 as vented home heating 

equipment and unvented home heating 

equipment (i.e., ‘‘vented heaters’’ and 

‘‘unvented heaters,’’ respectively). 

These latter terms are also defined at 10 

CFR 430.2. Federal energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(i) currently 

exist for vented home heating 

equipment, but there are currently no 

standards for unvented home heating 

equipment. 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

evaluated whether energy conservation 

standards should be proposed for 

unvented heaters. In addition, DOE 

analyzed vented heaters subject to the 

standards specified in 10 CFR 430.32(i). 

For unvented home heating 

equipment, DOE has previously 

determined that unvented heaters have 

minimal potential for energy savings, as 

they are installed within a conditioned 

space and all waste heat will be 

transferred to the conditioned space. 75 

FR 20112, 20130 (April 16, 2010). 

Further, the test procedure only 

includes test methods for annual energy 

consumption for primary electric 

heaters and rated output for all 

unvented heaters and does not include 

a test method or metric for energy 

efficiency. See 10 CFR part 430 subpart 

B appendix G. 

For vented home heating equipment, 

DOE analyzed the current vented heater 

market and compared it to the market 

during the previous rulemakings. DOE 

found the market has shrunk since these 

previous rulemakings but that the 

available technology options and 

efficiency levels have not changed 

significantly. In those earlier 

rulemakings, DOE found that while 

some efficiency levels were 

technologically feasible, they were not 

economically justified. DOE also 

examined the energy use of the vented 

heaters considered in the previous 

rulemakings. 

Based on the results of these analyses, 

as summarized and explained in section 

III of this document, DOE has 

tentatively determined that energy 

conservation standards for unvented 

heaters are not warranted due to 

insignificant potential energy savings. 

Similarly, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended energy 

conservation standards for vented 

heaters are not warranted due to 

insignificant energy savings, and 

furthermore, depending on the product 

class, more-stringent standards for 

vented heaters would not be 

technologically feasible or economically 

justified. Consequently, DOE proposes 

to take no further action vis-a`-vis the 

energy conservation standards for DHE 

at this time. 

II. Authority and Background 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of energy conservation 

standards for unvented home heating 

equipment and vented home heating 

equipment. 

A. Authority 

EPCA, Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317, as codified), among other 

things, authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, part B of 

EPCA established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Consumer 

Products Other Than Automobiles, 

which sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

The National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Public Law 100–12, amended EPCA to 

include DHE in the list of covered 

products and prescribed the initial 

energy conservation standards for DHE. 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(9); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(e)(3)) NAECA amendments to 

EPCA also directed DOE to conduct two 

cycles of rulemakings to determine 

whether to amend these standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(e)(4)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program for covered 

products consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of the 

Act specifically include definitions (42 

U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 

6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 

6294), energy conservation standards 

(42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of each covered 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of 

covered products must use the 

prescribed DOE test procedure as the 

basis for certifying to DOE that their 

products comply with the applicable 

energy conservation standards adopted 

under EPCA and when making 

representations to the public regarding 

the energy use or efficiency of those 

products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use 

these test procedures to determine 

whether the products comply with 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The currently 

applicable DOE test procedures for 

unvented home heating equipment and 

vented home heating equipment, 

subsets of DHE, appear at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix G (Appendix 

G) and appendix O (Appendix O), 

respectively. 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered products 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(a)–(c)) DOE may, however, grant 

waivers of Federal preemption in 

limited instances for particular State 

laws or regulations, in accordance with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77019 

3 DOE defines ‘‘direct heating equipment’’ as 

vented home heating equipment and unvented 

home heating equipment. 10 CFR 430.2. For the 

purpose of the energy conservation standards, DOE 

further delineates vented home heating equipment 

as ‘‘gas wall fan type,’’ ‘‘gas wall gravity type,’’ ‘‘gas 

floor,’’ and ‘‘gas room,’’ and then further divides 

product classes by input capacity. 10 CFR 430.32(i). 

the procedures set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6297(d). 

As noted previously, NAECA 

amended EPCA to include the initial 

energy conservation standards for 

DHE—limited to gas DHE only—which 

were based on annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (AFUE). NAECA established 

separate standards for ‘‘wall fan type,’’ 

‘‘wall gravity type,’’ ‘‘floor,’’ and 

‘‘room’’ DHE, further divided by input 

capacity.3 (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)(3)) The 

statutory energy conservation standards 

for gas DHE were incorporated into the 

CFR in a final rule published on 

February 7, 1989 (February 1989 final 

rule) and applied to all gas vented home 

heating equipment manufactured 

beginning January 1, 1990. 54 FR 6062, 

6077. The initial statutory energy 

conservation standards published in the 

February 1989 final rule are presented 

in Table II.1 of this document. 

TABLE II.1—MINIMUM FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GAS DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT

ESTABLISHED BY NAECA 

DHE type Heat circulation type Input rate, Btu/h AFUE, percent 

Wall .......................................................... Fan Type ................................................. ≤42,000 .................................................... 73 

>42,000 .................................................... 74 

Gravity Type ............................................ ≤10,000 .................................................... 59 

>10,000 and ≤12,000 .............................. 60 

>12,000 and ≤15,000 .............................. 61 

>15,000 and ≤19,000 .............................. 62 

>19,000 and ≤27,000 .............................. 63 

>27,000 and ≤46,000 .............................. 64 

>46,000 .................................................... 65 

Floor ......................................................... All ............................................................. ≤37,000 .................................................... 56 

>37,000 .................................................... 57 

Room ....................................................... All ............................................................. ≤18,000 .................................................... 57 

>18,000 and ≤20,000 .............................. 58 

>20,000 and ≤27,000 .............................. 63 

>27,000 and ≤46,000 .............................. 64 

>46,000 .................................................... 65 

Pursuant to the amendments to EPCA 

contained in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), 

Public Law 110–140, any final rule for 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards promulgated after July 1, 

2010, is required to address standby 

mode and off mode energy use. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when 

DOE adopts a standard for a covered 

product after that date, it must, if 

justified by the criteria for adoption of 

standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and 

off mode energy use into a single 

standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 

a separate standard for such energy use 

for that product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) In this analysis, DOE 

considers such energy use in its 

determination of whether energy 

conservation standards need to be 

adopted or amended. 

EPCA also requires under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m), that DOE must periodically 

review its already established energy 

conservation standards for a covered 

product no later than six years from the 

issuance of a final rule establishing or 

amending a standard for a covered 

product. This six-year-lookback 

provision requires that DOE publish 

either a determination that standards do 

not need to be amended or a NOPR, 

including new proposed standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than three years after the issuance of a 

final determination not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notification of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 

DOE must make the analysis on which 

the determination is based publicly 

available and provide an opportunity for 

written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(2)) 

A determination that amended 

standards are not needed must be based 

on consideration of whether amended 

standards will result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are costeffective. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Additionally, any 

new or amended energy conservation 

standard prescribed by the Secretary for 

any type (or class) of covered product 

shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Among the factors DOE 

considers in evaluating whether a 

proposed standard level is economically 

justified includes whether the proposed 

standard at that level is cost-effective, as 

defined under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). Under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II), an evaluation of 

cost-effectiveness requires DOE to 

consider savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

A NOPR including new proposed 

standards, must be based on the criteria 

established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) require that standards be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency, 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and they must 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) In deciding 

whether a proposed standard is 

economically justified, DOE must 

determine, after receiving public 

comment, whether the benefits of the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77020 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this 

determination after receiving comments 

on the proposed standard, and by 

considering, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the following seven 

statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

DOE is publishing this NOPD in 

satisfaction of the three-year review 

requirement in EPCA. 

B. Rulemaking History 

As noted, DOE codified the statutory 

standards for gas DHE into the CFR in 

the February 1989 final rule. 54 FR 6062 

(Feb. 7, 1989). Pursuant to the 

requirements in EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(e)(4)), DOE conducted two cycles 

of rulemaking for DHE to determine 

whether to amend these standards. DOE 

published a final rule concluding the 

first round of rulemaking on April 16, 

2010 (75 FR 20112 (April 2010 final 

rule)), and the Department published a 

final rule concluding the second round 

on October 17, 2016 (81 FR 71325 

(October 2016 final determination)). 

1. Current Standards 

In the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for gas vented 

home heating equipment manufactured 

on and after April 16, 2013. 75 FR 

20112, 20234–20235 (April 16, 2010). 

These standards consolidated the input 

rate ranges of all gas wall gravity type 

vented heaters at or below 27,000 

Btu/h, consolidated the input rate 

ranges of all gas room vented heaters at 

or below 20,000 Btu/h, and are set forth 

in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

430.32(i)(2) and repeated in Table II.2 of 

this document. There are currently no 

standards for unvented home heating 

equipment. 

TABLE II.2—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GAS VENTED HOME HEATING EQUIPMENT

DHE type Heat circulation type Input rate, Btu/h AFUE, percent 

Wall .......................................................... Fan Type ................................................. ≤42,000 .................................................... 75 

>42,000 .................................................... 76 

Gravity Type ............................................ ≤27,000 .................................................... 65 

>27,000 and ≤46,000 .............................. 66 

>46,000 .................................................... 67 

Floor ......................................................... All ............................................................. ≤37,000 .................................................... 57 

>37,000 .................................................... 58 

Room ....................................................... All ............................................................. ≤20,000 .................................................... 61 

>20,000 and ≤27,000 .............................. 66 

>27,000 and ≤46,000 .............................. 67 

>46,000 .................................................... 68 

2. April 2010 Final Rule 

a. Unvented Heaters 

DOE did not adopt standards for 

unvented heaters in the April 2010 final 

rule, having determined that a standard 

would produce little energy savings 

(largely due to the fact that any heat 

losses are dissipated directly into the 

conditioned space) and because of 

limitations in the applicable DOE test 

procedure. 75 FR 20112, 20130 (April 

16, 2010). The unvented heaters test 

procedure, Appendix G, includes 

neither a method for measuring energy 

efficiency nor a descriptor for 

representing the efficiency of unvented 

heaters. Instead, Appendix G provides a 

method to measure and calculate the 

rated output for all unvented heaters 

and annual energy consumption of 

primary electric unvented heaters. 

b. Vented Heaters 

DOE established the current energy 

conservation standards for vented 

heaters in the April 2010 final rule, but 

the agency determined that standards 

more stringent than those adopted 

would not be economically justified. 75 

FR 20112, 20217–20219 (April 16, 

2010). At the next highest level of 

stringency, trial standard level (TSL) 3, 

DOE projected the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an increased life-cycle cost 

would be 19 percent for gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, 33 percent for gas 

wall gravity type vented heaters, 25 

percent for gas floor vented heaters, and 

20 percent for gas room vented heaters. 

Id. at 75 FR 20218. DOE also projected 

a decrease in the industry net present 

value (INPV) of 42.4 percent, with total 

conversion costs (costs for redesigning 

and retooling product lines not already 

meeting the amended standards) of 

roughly half of the industry value. Id. 

DOE also found that the industry had 

consolidated significantly over the prior 

decade due to a steady decline in 

shipments; the three competitors that 

account for nearly 100 percent of the 

market had survived up to that point by 

consolidating a variety of legacy brands 

and products and providing them in 

replacement situations; and thus, each 

of the three competitors, two of which 

are small business manufacturers, 

would face the prospect of significantly 

upgrading several low-volume product 

lines. Id. DOE found that for the most 

part, manufacturers did not have 

significant volume over which to spread 

the capital conversion costs required by 

TSL 3 and all higher TSLs, meaning that 

margins will likely be pressured unless 

consumers accept large increases in 

product price. Id. DOE projected even 

more harmful impacts for small 

business (e.g., the typical small business 

manufacturer in the industry would 

require investment equal to 426 percent 

of its annual earnings before interest 

and taxes). Id. Concern with the 

potential impacts on competition and 

small business were also raised by the 

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust 

Division based on its review of the 

evaluated TSLs. Id. at 75 FR 20235– 

20236. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77021 

4The AHRI directory for DHE can be found at: 

https://www.ahridirectory.org/ 

NewSearch?programId=23&searchTypeId=3 (Last 

accessed for the October 2016 final determination 

on July 16, 2015). The DOE CCMS database can be 

found at: https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/CCMS-4-Direct_Heating_

Equipment.html#q=Product_Group_

s%3A%22Direct%20Heating%20Equipment%22 

(Last accessed for the October 2016 final 

determination on July 16, 2015). 

5 DOE noted that for gas room vented heaters with 

input capacity up to 20,000 Btu/h, the maximum 

AFUE available on the market increased from 59 

percent in 2009 (only one unit at this input capacity 

was available on the market at that time) to 71 

percent in 2015. DOE found that this was due to 

heat exchanger improvements only because these 

units do not use electricity. Due to the small input 

capacity, DOE found that this increase in AFUE 

(based on heat exchanger improvements relative to 

input capacity) was not representative of or feasible 

for the other gas room vented heater product 

classes. 

6 Information obtained during confidential 

manufacturer interviews. 

In the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

concluded that at the next higher level 

of stringency over that which was 

adopted, the benefits of energy savings, 

emission reductions, and consumer net 

present value (NPV) benefits would be 

outweighed by the economic burden on 

some consumers, the large capital 

conversion costs that could result in a 

large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers of vented heaters, and 

the potential for small business 

manufacturers of vented heaters to 

reduce their product offerings or to be 

forced to exit the market completely, 

thereby reducing competition in the 

vented heater market. Id. at 75 FR 

20218–20219. 

Compliance with the adopted 

standards (i.e., those currently at 10 CFR 

430.32(i)(2)) was required for all vented 

home heating equipment manufactured 

beginning April 16, 2013. 

3. October 2016 Final Determination 

a. Unvented Heaters 

In the October 2016 final 

determination, DOE concluded that 

energy conservation standards for 

unvented heaters would result in 

negligible energy savings. 81 FR 71325, 

71327 (Oct. 17, 2016). DOE also 

explained that the test procedure for 

unvented heaters in Appendix G, 

includes a calculation of annual energy 

consumption based on a single 

assignment of active mode hours for 

unvented heaters that are used as the 

primary heating source for the home. Id. 

at 81 FR 71328. For unvented heaters 

that are not used as the primary heating 

source for the home, there are no 

provisions for calculating either the 

energy efficiency or annual energy 

consumption. Id. DOE further explained 

that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), 

DOE is prohibited from prescribing a 

new or amended standard for a covered 

consumer product if a test procedure 

has not been prescribed for that 

consumer product, and as such, DOE 

could not consider standards for these 

products at that time. Id. 

b. Vented Heaters 

In the October 2016 final 

determination, DOE found that few 

changes to the industry and product 

offerings had occurred since the April 

2010 final rule, and, therefore, the 

conclusions presented in that final rule 

were still valid. 81 FR 71325, 71327– 

71328 (Oct. 17, 2016). For the October 

2016 final determination, DOE reviewed 

the vented heater market, including 

product literature and product listings 

in the DOE Compliance Certification 

Management System (CCMS) database 

and the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) product 

directory.4 Id. at 81 FR 71327. DOE 

found that the number of models offered 

in each of the vented heater product 

classes had decreased overall since the 

April 2010 final rule, and the agency 

concluded that this finding supported 

the notion that the vented heater market 

was shrinking and that product lines 

were mainly maintained as 

replacements for existing vented heater 

units, and that new product lines 

generally were not being developed. Id. 

For the October 2016 final 

determination DOE also examined 

available technologies used to improve 

the efficiency of vented heaters. DOE 

analyzed products on the market at the 

time through product teardowns and 

engaged in manufacturer interviews to 

obtain further information in support of 

its analysis. 81 FR 71325, 71327 (Oct. 

17, 2016). Most of the technology 

options on the market and evaluated for 

the October 2016 final determination 

(i.e., improved heat exchanger, induced 

draft, electronic ignition, and a twospeed blower for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters) were those considered 

as part of the vented heater rulemaking 

analysis for the April 2010 final rule. Id. 

DOE determined that the technology 

options available for vented heaters 

were likely to have limited potential for 

achieving energy savings.5 Id. 

Furthermore, DOE concluded that the 

costs of technology options would likely 

be similar or higher than in the previous 

rulemaking analysis due to reduced 

shipments and, therefore, reduced 

purchasing power of vented heater 

manufacturers. Id. DOE also evaluated 

condensing technology for gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, which had become 

available after the April 2010 final rule, 

and, therefore, was not evaluated as part 

of that rulemaking. Id. DOE concluded 

that this technology option would not 

be economically justified when 

analyzed for the Nation as a whole due 

to the significant increase in initial 

product cost for products using this 

technology and the potential for severe 

manufacturer impacts due to the 

necessary capital conversion costs if an 

energy conservation standard were 

adopted at this level. Id. at 81 FR 

71327–71328. 

DOE acknowledged that the vented 

heater industry had seen further 

consolidation since the April 2010 final 

rule, with the total number of 

manufacturers declining from six to 

four. Id. at 81 FR 71328. Furthermore, 

according to manufacturers,6 shipments 

further decreased since the April 2010 

final rule, and, therefore, it would be 

more difficult for manufacturers to 

recover capital expenditures resulting 

from increased standards. Id. DOE 

acknowledged that vented heater units 

continue to be produced primarily as 

replacements and that the market is 

small, and expected that shipments 

would continue to decrease and 

amended standards would likely 

accelerate the trend of declining 

shipments. Id. Moreover, DOE 

anticipated that small business impacts 

resulting from amended standards could 

be significant, as two of the four 

remaining manufacturers subject to 

vented heater standards were small 

businesses. Id. 

DOE concluded in the October 2016 

final determination that due to the lack 

of advancement in the vented heater 

industry since the April 2010 final rule 

in terms of product offerings, available 

technology options and associated costs, 

and declining shipment volumes, 

amending the vented heater energy 

conservation standards would impose a 

substantial burden on manufacturers of 

vented heaters, particularly to small 

manufacturers. 81 FR 71325, 71328 

(Oct. 17, 2016). DOE noted that it had 

rejected higher TSLs for vented heaters 

in the April 2010 final rule due to 

significant impacts on industry 

profitability, risks of accelerated 

industry consolidation, and the 

likelihood that small manufacturers 

would experience disproportionate 

impacts that could lead them to 

discontinue product lines or exit the 

market altogether, and the Department 

stated that the market and the 

manufacturers’ circumstances at the 

time were similar to when DOE 

evaluated amended energy conservation 

standards for vented heaters for the 

April 2010 final rule. Id. at 81 FR 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77022 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

7EPCA defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as the ratio of 

the useful output of services from an article of 

industrial equipment to the energy use of such 

article, measured according to the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(3)) EPCA defines 

‘‘energy use’’ as the quantity of energy directly 

consumed by an article of industrial equipment at 

the point of use, as measured by the Federal test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(4)) Given this context, 

DOE relies on site energy as the appropriate metric 

for evaluating the significance of energy savings. 

71328–71329. Accordingly, DOE 

concluded that amended energy 

conservation standards for vented 

heaters were not economically justified 

at any level above the current standard 

levels because benefits of more-stringent 

standards would not outweigh the 

burdens, and the Department 

determined not to amend the vented 

heater energy conservation standards. 

Id. at 81 FR 71329. 

In the October 2016 final 

determination, DOE also considered 

whether to establish energy 

conservation standards for standby 

mode and off mode electrical energy 

use, noting that fossil fuel energy use in 

standby mode and off mode is already 

included in the AFUE metric and that 

electric standby mode and off mode 

energy use is small in comparison to 

fossil fuel energy use. Id. Because the 

standards for vented heaters were not 

amended, DOE concluded it was not 

required under EPCA to adopt amended 

standards that include standby mode 

and off mode energy use, and due to the 

relatively small potential for energy 

savings, DOE declined to do so. Id. 

4. February 2019 Request for 

Information 

On February 26, 2019, DOE published 

a request for information (RFI) (February 

2019 RFI) to solicit information from the 

public to help DOE determine whether 

amended standards for DHE would 

result in significant energy savings and 

whether such standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 84 FR 6095. 

5. Process Rule 

On February 14, 2020, DOE published 

in the Federal Register a final rule 

which updated the procedures, 

interpretations, and policies that DOE 

will follow in the consideration and 

promulgation of new or revised 

appliance energy conservation 

standards and test procedures under 

EPCA. 85 FR 8626; see also 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A (i.e., 

‘‘Process Rule’’). The Process Rule 

requires DOE to conduct an early 

assessment, which includes publishing 

a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing that DOE is considering a 

rulemaking proceeding and soliciting 

the submission of related comments, 

including data and information on 

whether DOE should proceed with the 

rulemaking, including whether any new 

or amended rule would be costeffective, economically justified, 

technologically feasible, or would result 

in a significant savings of energy. 

Section 6(a)(1) of the Process Rule. 

Based on the responses received to the 

early assessment and DOE’s own 

analysis, DOE will then determine 

whether to proceed with a rulemaking 

for a new or amended energy 

conservation standard or an amended 

test procedure. Id. If DOE determines 

that a new or amended standard would 

not satisfy all of the applicable statutory 

criteria, DOE would engage in a notice 

and comment rulemaking to issue a 

determination that a new or amended 

standard is not warranted. Id. If DOE 

receives sufficient information 

suggesting it could justify a new or 

amended standard or the information 

received is inconclusive with regard to 

the statutory criteria, DOE would 

undertake the preliminary stages of a 

rulemaking to issue or amend an energy 

conservation standard. Section 6(a)(2) of 

the Process Rule. In those instances 

where the early assessment either 

suggested that a new or amended energy 

conservation standard might be justified 

or in which the information was 

inconclusive on this, DOE will examine 

the potential costs and benefits and 

energy savings potential of a new or 

amended energy conservation standard. 

Section 6(a)(3) of the Process Rule. 

DOE will first look to the projected 

energy savings that are likely to result 

in ‘‘significant energy savings,’’ as 

required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B) 

to ensure that DOE avoids setting a 

standard that ‘‘will not result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ 7

Section 6(b)(1) of the Process Rule. To 

determine whether energy savings could 

be significant, the projected energy 

savings from a potential maximum 

technologically feasible (max-tech) 

standard will be evaluated against a 

threshold of 0.3 quadrillion Btus (quads) 

of site energy saved over a 30-year 

period. Section 6(b)(2) of the Process 

Rule. If the projected max-tech energy 

savings do not meet or exceed this 

threshold, those max-tech savings 

would then be compared to the total 

energy usage of the covered product to 

calculate a potential percentage 

reduction in energy usage. Section 

6(b)(3) of the Process Rule. If this 

comparison does not yield a reduction 

in site energy use of at least 10 percent 

over a 30-year period, the analysis will 

end, and DOE will propose to determine 

that no significant energy savings would 

likely result from setting new or 

amended standards. Section 6(b)(4) of 

the Process Rule. If either one of the 

thresholds is reached, DOE will conduct 

analyses to ascertain whether a standard 

can be prescribed that produces the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is both technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

still constitutes significant energy 

savings at the level determined to be 

economically justified. Section 6(b)(5) of 

the Process Rule. 

Because this rulemaking was already 

in progress at the time the revised 

Process Rule was published, DOE will 

apply those provisions moving forward 

(i.e., rather than reinitiating the entire 

rulemaking process). 

6. Gas Industry Petition for Rulemaking 

EPCA specifies requirements when 

promulgating an energy conservation 

standard for a covered product that has 

two or more subcategories. DOE must 

specify a different standard level for a 

type or class of product that has the 

same function or intended use, if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (A) Consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a 

performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE must consider such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing 

such a standard must include an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) Related to the 

establishment of product classes, EPCA 

provides that the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

for covered products if the Secretary 

finds (and publishes such finding) that 

interested persons have established by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the 

standard is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the United States in 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

On November 1, 2018, DOE published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

petition for rulemaking and request for 

comment regarding a petition for 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77023 

8 DOE also received a comment that was not 

responsive to the RFI. 

rulemaking submitted by Spire, Inc., the 

National Gas Supply Association, the 

National Propane Gas Association, the 

American Public Gas Association, and 

the American Gas Association (Gas 

Industry Petition). 83 FR 54883. The 

petition requested that DOE issue an 

interpretive rule stating that DOE’s 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for residential furnaces and commercial 

water heaters would result in the 

unavailability of ‘‘performance 

characteristics’’ within the meaning of 

the EPCA (i.e., by setting standards 

which can only be met by condensing 

combustion technology products/ 

equipment and thereby precluding the 

distribution in commerce of noncondensing combustion technology 

products/equipment) and withdraw the 

proposed energy conservation standards 

for residential furnaces and commercial 

water heaters based upon such findings. 

83 FR 54883, 54885 (Nov. 1, 2018). 

On July 11, 2019, following 

consideration of the Gas Industry 

Petition, public comments, and other 

information received on the petition, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a notice granting in part and denying in 

part of the petition for rulemaking, a 

notice of proposed interpretative rule 

(NOPIR), and request for comment. 84 

FR 33011 (July 2019 NOPIR). The July 

2019 NOPIR granted the request for an 

interpretive rule, but denied the petition 

to withdraw the proposed rules for 

residential furnaces and commercial 

water heaters. Id. at 84 FR 33021. 

Specifically, the July 2019 NOPIR 

proposed to revise DOE’s interpretation 

of EPCA’s ‘‘features’’ provision in the 

context of condensing and noncondensing technology used in 

residential furnaces, commercial water 

heating equipment, and similarly 

situated appliances (where permitted by 

EPCA). Id. at 84 FR 33020. DOE stated 

that as compared to products that rely 

on non-condensing technology, 

products that use condensing 

technology may result in more 

complicated/costly installations, require 

physical changes to a home that impact 

aesthetics (e.g., by adding new venting 

into the living space or decreasing closet 

or other storage space), and may result 

in some enhanced level of fuel 

switching. Id. DOE also acknowledged 

that although energy efficiency 

improvements may pay for themselves 

over time, there is a significant increase 

in first-cost associated with residential 

furnaces and commercial water heaters 

using condensing technology, and for 

consumers with difficult installation 

situations (e.g., inner-city row houses) 

there would be the added cost of 

potentially extensive venting 

modifications. Id. 

DOE proposed in the July 2019 NOPIR 

to interpret the statute to provide that 

adoption of energy conservation 

standards that would limit the market to 

natural gas and/or propane furnaces, 

water heaters, or similarly situated 

products/equipment (where permitted 

by EPCA) that use condensing 

combustion technology would result in 

the unavailability of a performancerelated feature within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). 84 FR 33011, 33021 (July 11, 

2019). 

In the July 2019 NOPIR, DOE initially 

assumed that if it were to adopt an 

interpretation consistent with the Gas 

Industry Petition, it would suffice to set 

product/equipment classes largely based 

upon the key distinction of whether an 

appliance utilizes condensing or noncondensing combustion technology. 

However, a number of commenters on 

the proposed interpretive rule suggested 

that such an approach may not 

adequately resolve the issue at hand, as 

presented in the petition. Instead, these 

commenters suggested that the agency 

should focus on preservation of 

Category I venting, or alternatively 

maintaining compatibility with all types 

of existing venting (i.e., Categories I, II, 

III, and IV). In light of these comments, 

DOE decided to issue a supplemental 

notice of proposed interpretive rule 

(where these comments are presented in 

further detail), which was published in 

the Federal Register on September 24, 

2020 (the September 2020 SNOPIR). 85 

FR 60090. In that document, DOE 

tentatively determined to consider a 

more involved class structure which 

turns on the maintenance of 

compatibility with existing venting 

categories, and the Department stated 

that it seeks further information on the 

potential feasibility, burdens, and other 

implications of implementing such a 

venting-compatibility approach. The 

comment period on the September 2020 

SNOPIR was originally scheduled to 

end on October 26, 2020. 

However, on September 25, 2020, and 

October 6, 2020, DOE received requests 

from A.O. Smith and Lennox, 

respectively, seeking an extension of the 

comment period on the September 2020 

SNOPIR. On September 29, 2020, DOE 

received a request from the submitters 

of the Gas Industry Petition seeking 

prompt action on their petition. 

Balancing these competing requests, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

on October 22, 2020 a notice extending 

the public comment period for 

submitting comments and data on the 

SNOPIR to November 9, 2020. 85 FR 

67312. DOE will analyze the 

information received in comments on 

the September 2020 SNOPIR, and it will 

consider both potential ventingcompatibility approaches, as well as its 

original proposed approach. 

DOE plans to consider the comments 

received on the July 2019 NOPIR and 

the September 2020 SNOPIR, after 

which the Department will determine 

whether and how to proceed with the 

interpretive rule in response to the Gas 

Industry Petition. As necessary, DOE 

would then consider any required 

changes to its energy conservation 

standards for DHE, including product 

class designations. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after a review of the DHE 

market, including product literature and 

product listings in the DOE CCMS 

database and the AHRI product 

directory. DOE also considered written 

comments, data, and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. In response to the 

February 2019 RFI, DOE received eight 

substantive comments from interested 

parties, which are listed in Table III.1.8

This notice addresses issues raised by 

these commenters. 

TABLE III.1—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY 2019 RFI 

Name(s) Commenter 

type * Acronym 

Air-conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ..................................................................................... TA .................. AHRI. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural 

Resources Defense Council.

EA .................. Joint Advocates. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77024 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

9The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to consider amended energy 

conservation standards for direct heating 

equipment. (Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–STD–0002, 

which is maintained at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BTSTD-0002). The references are arranged as follows: 

(commenter name, comment docket ID number, 

page of that document). 

TABLE III.1—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE FEBRUARY 2019 RFI—Continued 

Name(s) Commenter 

type * Acronym 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers .............................................................................................. TA .................. AHAM. 

Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law ............................................................... P .................... PI NYU. 

National Grid USA Service Company ............................................................................................................. U .................... National Grid. 

National Propane Gas Association ................................................................................................................. U .................... NPGA. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ............................................................................................................. EA .................. NEEA. 

Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric (i.e., California Investor 

Owned Utilities).

U .................... CA IOUs. 

* EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; P: Policy Advocacy Group, TA: Trade Association; U: Utility or Utility Trade Association. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public docket.9

A. Product Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

new or amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides covered 

products into product classes by the 

type of energy used or by capacity or 

other performance-related features that 

justify differing standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)) In making a determination 

whether a performance-related feature 

justifies a different standard, DOE must 

consider such factors as the utility of the 

feature to the consumer and other 

factors DOE determines are appropriate. 

Id. The scope of coverage is discussed 

in further deal in section III.A.1 of this 

document. The product classes for this 

proposed determination are discussed 

in further detail in section III.A.2 of this 

document. 

1. Scope of Coverage and Definitions 

This NOPD covers those products that 

meet the definitions of ‘‘direct heating 

equipment,’’ which is defined as vented 

home heating equipment and unvented 

home heating equipment. 10 CFR 430.2. 

‘‘Home heating equipment, not 

including furnaces’’ likewise means 

vented home heating equipment and 

unvented home heating equipment. Id. 

The existing energy conservation 

standards at 10 CFR 430.32(i)(2) apply 

only to product classes of vented home 

heating equipment. There are no 

existing energy conservation standards 

for unvented home heating equipment. 

a. Unvented Heaters 

Unvented heaters are those products 

that meet the definitions for ‘‘unvented 

home heating equipment,’’ as codified at 

10 CFR 430.2. Under that provision, 

‘‘Unvented home heating equipment’’ 

means a class of home heating 

equipment, not including furnaces, used 

for the purpose of furnishing heat to a 

space proximate to such heater directly 

from the heater and without duct 

connections and includes electric 

heaters and unvented gas and oil 

heaters. DOE further defines the various 

sub-types of unvented heaters at 10 CFR 

430.2 as follows: 

(1) ‘‘Baseboard electric heater’’ means 

an electric heater which is intended to 

be recessed in or surface mounted on 

walls at floor level, which is 

characterized by long, low physical 

dimensions, and which transfers heat by 

natural convection and/or radiation. 

(2) ‘‘Ceiling electric heater’’ means an 

electric heater which is intended to be 

recessed in, surface mounted on, or 

hung from a ceiling, and which transfers 

heat by radiation and/or convection 

(either natural or forced). 

(3) ‘‘Electric heater’’ means an electric 

appliance in which heat is generated 

from electrical energy and dissipated by 

convection and radiation and includes 

baseboard electric heaters, ceiling 

electric heaters, floor electric heaters, 

portable electric heaters, and wall 

electric heaters. 

(4) ‘‘Floor electric heater’’ means an 

electric heater which is intended to be 

recessed in a floor, and which transfers 

by radiation and/or convection (either 

natural or forced). 

(5) ‘‘Portable electric heater’’ means 

an electric heater which is intended to 

stand unsupported, and can be moved 

from place to place within a structure. 

It is connected to electric supply by 

means of a cord and plug, and transfers 

heat by radiation and/or convention 

(either natural or forced). 

(6) ‘‘Primary heater’’ means a heating 

device that is the principal source of 

heat for a structure and includes 

baseboard electric heaters, ceiling 

electric heaters, and wall electric 

heaters. 

(7) ‘‘Supplementary heater’’ means a 

heating device that provides heat to a 

space in addition to that which is 

supplied by a primary heater. 

Supplementary heaters include portable 

electric heaters. 

(8) ‘‘Unvented gas heater’’ means an 

unvented, self-contained, free-standing, 

non-recessed gas-burning appliance 

which furnishes warm air by gravity or 

fan circulation. 

(9) ‘‘Unvented oil heater’’ means an 

unvented, self-contained, free-standing, 

non-recessed oil-burning appliance 

which furnishes warm air by gravity or 

fan circulation. 

(10) ‘‘Wall electric heater’’ means an 

electric heater (excluding baseboard 

electric heaters) which is intended to be 

recessed in or surface mounted on 

walls, which transfers heat by radiation 

and/or convection (either natural or 

forced) and which includes forced 

convectors, natural convectors, radiant 

heaters, high wall or valance heaters. 

DOE received no recommended 

changes to the unvented heater 

definitions in response to its request in 

the February 2019 RFI. 

b. Vented Heaters 

Vented heaters are those products that 

meet the definitions for ‘‘vented home 

heating equipment,’’ as codified at 10 

CFR 430.2. Under that provision, 

‘‘vented home heating equipment’’ or 

‘‘vented heater’’ means a class of home 

heating equipment, not including 

furnaces, designed to furnish warmed 

air to the living space of a residence, 

directly from the device, without duct 

connections (except that boots not to 

exceed 10 inches beyond the casing may 

be permitted) and includes: Vented wall 

furnace, vented floor furnace, and 

vented room heater. DOE further defines 

the various sub-types of vented heaters 

at 10 CFR 430.2 as follows: 

(1) ‘‘Vented floor furnace’’ means a 

self-contained vented heater suspended 

from the floor of the space being heated, 

taking air for combustion from outside 

this space. The vented floor furnace 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77025 

supplies heated air circulated by gravity 

or by a fan directly into the space to be 

heated through openings in the casing. 

(2) ‘‘Vented room heater’’ means a 

self-contained, free standing, nonrecessed, vented heater for furnishing 

warmed air to the space in which it is 

installed. The vented room heater 

supplies heated air circulated by gravity 

or by a fan directly into the space to be 

heated through openings in the casing. 

(3) ‘‘Vented wall furnace’’ means a 

self-contained vented heater complete 

with grilles or the equivalent, designed 

for incorporation in, or permanent 

attachment to, a wall of a residence and 

furnishing heated air circulated by 

gravity or by a fan directly into the 

space to be heated through openings in 

the casing. 

AHRI recommended against revisions 

or additions to the vented heater 

definitions, stating that the definitions 

are appropriate as written and capture 

the entirety of the market. (AHRI, No. 6 

at p. 2) No other comments were 

received regarding the definitions 

relevant to vented heaters. 

2. Product Classes 

In general, when evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, DOE divides the covered 

product into classes by the type of 

energy used, the capacity, or other 

performance-related feature that justifies 

a different standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) 

In making a determination whether 

capacity or another performance-related 

feature justifies a different standard, 

DOE must consider such factors as the 

utility of the feature to the consumer 

and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. Id. 

For vented heaters, the current energy 

conservation standards specified in 10 

CFR 430.32(i)(2) are based on 11 

product classes divided by equipment 

type (i.e., gas wall, gas floor, or gas 

room), heat circulation type (i.e., fan 

type or gravity type), and input 

capacity. Table III.2 lists the current 

product classes for vented heaters. 

TABLE III.2—CURRENT VENTED HEATER PRODUCT CLASSES

DHE type Heat circulation type Input rate, Btu/h 

Gas Wall ............................................................. Fan Type .......................................................... ≤42,000. 

>42,000. 

Gravity Type ..................................................... ≤27,000. 

>27,000 and ≤46,000. 

>46,000. 

Gas Floor ............................................................ All ..................................................................... ≤37,000. 

>37,000. 

Gas Room .......................................................... All ..................................................................... ≤20,000. 

>20,000 and ≤27,000. 

>27,000 and ≤46,000. 

>46,000. 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE 

requested feedback on whether changes 

to the current vented heater product 

classes should be made. AHRI stated 

that changes to the existing product 

classes and adding new product classes 

are not necessary. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 2) 

No other comments were received on 

the DHE product classes. 

B. Analysis for This Notification of 

Proposed Determination 

1. Overview of the Analysis 

As stated previously, in determining 

that amended standards are not needed, 

DOE must consider whether amended 

standards would result in significant 

conservation of energy, are 

technologically feasible, and are costeffective as described in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)). 

An evaluation of cost-effectiveness 

under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II) 

requires that DOE consider savings in 

operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered 

products in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses for 

the covered products that are likely to 

result from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) Before potential 

energy savings and cost-effectiveness of 

amended standards can be estimated, 

available and working prototype 

technologies with the potential to 

improve energy efficiency must first be 

evaluated. Accordingly, DOE generally 

starts with this technology evaluation. 

a. Technological Feasibility 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

first conducts a market and technology 

assessment to survey the products 

currently available on the market and 

identify technology options (including 

prototype technologies) that could 

improve the efficiency of the products 

or equipment that are the subject of the 

rulemaking. DOE then conducts a 

screening analysis for the technologies 

identified, and, as a first step, 

determines which of those means for 

improving efficiency are technologically 

feasible. DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially-available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. 10 CFR part 

430, subpart C, appendix A, section 

6(c)(3)(i). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety, and (4) whether a 

proprietary technology represents a 

unique pathway to achieving a certain 

efficiency level. 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart C, appendix A, section 

6(c)(3)(ii)–(v) The technology options 

identified for this NOPD are essentially 

those technologies identified and 

considered for the October 2016 final 

determination. See sections III.B.3.b and 

III.B.3.c of this document for additional 

discussion. 

When DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered product, as part of its analysis, 

it must determine the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency or 

maximum reduction in energy use that 

is technologically feasible for such a 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) 

Accordingly, DOE determined the maxtech improvements in energy efficiency 

for vented heaters, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 

working prototypes. See section III.B.3.d 

of this document for further discussion. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77026 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

b. Energy Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether potential standards 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 

42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)) Congress did not 

define the statutory term ‘‘significant 

conservation of energy.’’ DOE recently 

defined a significant energy savings 

threshold in the Process Rule. 85 FR 

8626, 8705 (Feb. 14, 2020). Specifically, 

DOE prescribed a two-step approach 

that considers both a quad threshold 

value (i.e., for site energy savings 

calculated over a 30-year period) and a 

percentage threshold value (i.e., for 

percentage reduction in energy usage) to 

ascertain whether a potential standard 

satisfies the requirement of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B) that DOE may not set a 

standard that ‘‘will not result in 

significant conservation of energy.’’ Id.; 

see also section 6(b) of the Process Rule. 

As discussed, if neither threshold is 

met, the analysis will end, and DOE will 

propose to determine that no significant 

energy savings would likely result from 

setting new or amended standards. 

Section 6(b)(4) of the Process Rule. 

DOE considered the energy use 

analysis conducted for the April 2010 

final rule, the qualitative evaluation of 

the potential savings in the October 

2016 final determination, and input 

from stakeholders and other sources to 

evaluate the current potential for 

significant energy conservation from 

amended DHE standards. 

c. Cost-Effectiveness 

Under EPCA’s six-year-lookback 

review provision for existing energy 

conservation standards at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1), cost-effectiveness of 

potential amended standards is a 

relevant consideration both where DOE 

proposes to adopt such standards, as 

well as where it does not. In making a 

determination of whether existing 

energy conservation standards do not 

need to be amended, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider the cost-effectiveness 

of amended standards in the context of 

the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered product compared to any 

increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 

the covered product that are likely to 

result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2))) Additionally, any new or 

amended energy conservation standard 

prescribed by the Secretary for any type 

(or class) of covered product shall be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency which 

the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) Cost-effectiveness is one 

of the factors that DOE must ultimately 

consider under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B) 

to support a finding of economic 

justification, if it is determined that 

amended standards are appropriate 

under the applicable statutory criteria. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) 

In determining cost effectiveness of 

potential amended standards for DHE, 

DOE considered the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) analyses that 

estimate the costs and benefits to users 

from standards. The LCC is the sum of 

the initial price of equipment (including 

its installation) and the operating 

expense (including energy, 

maintenance, and repair expenditures) 

discounted over the lifetime of the 

equipment. The LCC analysis requires a 

variety of inputs, such as equipment 

prices, equipment energy consumption, 

energy prices, maintenance and repair 

costs, equipment lifetime, and discount 

rates appropriate for consumers. To 

account for uncertainty and variability 

in specific inputs (e.g., equipment 

lifetime and discount rate), DOE uses a 

distribution of values, with probabilities 

attached to each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of more-efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. DOE calculates the PBP by 

dividing the change in total installation 

cost due to a more-stringent standard by 

the change in annual operating cost for 

the year that standards are assumed to 

take effect. 

To further inform DOE’s 

consideration of the cost-effectiveness of 

potential amended standards, DOE may 

also consider the NPV of total costs and 

benefits estimated as part of the national 

impact analysis (NIA). The inputs for 

determining the NPV of the total costs 

and benefits experienced by consumers 

are: (1) Total annual installed cost, (2) 

total annual operating costs (energy 

costs and repair and maintenance costs), 

and (3) a discount factor to calculate the 

present value of costs and savings. 

For the determination proposed in 

this document, DOE considered the LCC 

and PBP analyses from the April 2010 

final rule, as well as the evaluation in 

the October 2016 final determination, 

and information gathered on the current 

market and technologies. 

d. Further Considerations 

As stated previously, pursuant to 

EPCA, if DOE does not issue a 

notification of determination that energy 

conservation standards for DHE do not 

need to be amended, DOE must issue a 

NOPR that includes new proposed 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The 

new proposed standards in any such 

NOPR must be based on the criteria 

established under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(B)) The criteria in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o) require that standards be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency, 

which the Secretary determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In deciding whether a 

proposed standard is economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

DOE must make this determination after 

receiving comments on the proposed 

standard, and by considering, to the 

greatest extent practicable, the following 

seven statutory factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered products in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of the covered products that 

are likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy (or as applicable, water) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) 

As discussed in the October 2016 

final determination, DOE found that 

amended standards for vented heaters 

would not be economically justified 

under the considerations of the seven 

factors prescribed in EPCA. 81 FR 

71325, 71328–71329 (Oct. 17, 2016). For 

the determination proposed in this 

document, DOE has considered the 

previous evaluation of amended 

standards in the October 2016 final 

determination. 

2. Unvented Heaters 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE 

specifically sought comment on the 

definitions for unvented heaters, and 

generally sought comment on a number 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77027 

10 DOE published an RFI regarding test 

procedures for DHE. 84 FR 6088 (Feb. 26, 2019). 

The docket for the test procedure RFI is available 

at: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2019-BT-TP-0003. 

11AHRI is the trade association that represents 

manufacturers of heating products. It was formed 

on January 1, 2008, by the merger of GAMA, which 

formerly represented these manufacturers, and the 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. As 

stated previously, AHRI maintains a Consumers’ 

Directory of Certified Product Performance for 

direct heating equipment, which can be found on 

AHRI’s website at: https://www.ahridirectory.org/ 

Search/SearchHome?ReturnUrl=%2f. 

of issues related to DHE (which includes 

both vented and unvented home 

heaters). 84 FR 6095, 6098 (Feb. 26, 

2019). 

CA IOUs suggested that electric 

infrared heating technology be added to 

the technology options list. (CA IOUs, 

No. 9 at p. 1) DOE notes that this 

particular technology option is relevant 

to unvented heaters (as electric infrared 

heaters are not vented). However, for 

unvented heaters, including electric 

unvented heaters, any heat losses are 

lost to the living space in which the unit 

is installed. As a result, these heaters are 

nearly 100-percent efficient during the 

heating season, in that all energy 

consumed is converted to heat that ends 

up within the living space as useful 

heat, and as a result, there is negligible 

opportunity for energy savings. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined not to analyze unvented 

electric heaters further. However, DOE 

seeks additional input on the operation 

of electric infrared heaters as compared 

to other types of electric unvented 

heaters, and on the comparative levels 

of energy consumption. 

Regarding unvented gas heaters and 

unvented oil heaters, the Joint 

Advocates commented in response to 

the RFI that DOE should consider a 

standard for unvented heaters that 

addresses off mode energy 

consumption. The commenters argued 

that models with standing pilot lights 

can waste a significant amount of energy 

in off mode during the non-heating 

season. (Joint Advocates, No. 7 at p. 2) 

The unvented heater test procedure, 

Appendix G, has provisions to calculate 

the rated output in Btu/h for gas and oil 

models. Under Appendix G, 

measurement of the pilot light input rate 

is not required for unvented heaters 

where the pilot light is designed to be 

turned off by the user when the heater 

is not in use and that include an 

instruction to turn off the unit is 

provided on the heater near the gas 

control value (e.g., by label) by the 

manufacturer. For unvented heaters 

with a pilot light that is not designed to 

be turned off when not in use, or that 

does not include an instruction to do so, 

the pilot light input rate is required to 

be measured, but is not used in the 

calculation of rated output. DOE 

reviewed the product literature for 

unvented gas and oil heaters on the 

market and found that most models that 

include a standing pilot light instruct 

the user on how to turn the pilot light 

off, and, therefore, would not be 

required to measure the pilot light 

consumption under the existing test 

procedure. As a result, most models are 

not required to measure the pilot light 

input rate. DOE will further consider 

whether to propose amended test 

procedures for unvented home heating 

equipment in the ongoing evaluation of 

the test procedure, including whether to 

address the measurement of the energy 

consumption and energy efficiency 

associated with standing pilot lights.10

3. Vented Heaters 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE sought 

comment on a number of issued related 

to vented heaters, which are discussed 

in the subsections within this section. 

84 FR 6095, 6098–6106 (Feb, 26, 2019). 

a. Market Assessment 

Models on the Market 

DOE has conducted a review of the 

vented heater market, including product 

literature and product listings in the 

CCMS database and AHRI product 

directory. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the number of models 

offered in each of the vented heater 

product classes has continued to 

decrease overall since the October 2016 

final determination, as shown in Table 

III.3 of this document. The model 

counts presented in Table III.3 of this 

document are counts of individual 

model numbers, as opposed to basic 

model numbers. A basic model can have 

multiple individual model numbers 

certified under it. The model counts 

from previous rulemakings were 

individual model numbers, so for 

consistency of comparison, the model 

counts for 2019 that are presented in 

Table III.3 of this document are also in 

terms of individual model number. DOE 

acknowledges that, although changes in 

model counts and shipments sometimes 

correlate, changes to available model 

counts do not necessarily indicate a 

change in the number of units sold. For 

example, a model could be taken off of 

the market, but more units of another 

model could be sold, thereby resulting 

in roughly the same amount of sales as 

before the first model was taken off the 

market. Shipments of vented heaters are 

discussed is section III.B.3.g of this 

document. 

TABLE III.3—VENTED HEATER INDIVIDUAL MODEL COUNTS BY PRODUCT CLASS FOR CURRENT AND PREVIOUS

RULEMAKINGS

Product class 

Model count by product class 

2019 * 

October 2016 

final 

determination ** 

April 2010 

final rule *** 

Gas Wall Fan Type .......................................................................................................... 50 64 82 

Gas Wall Gravity Type .................................................................................................... 50 56 52 

Gas Floor ......................................................................................................................... 10 15 15 

Gas Room ........................................................................................................................ 19 28 29 

* CCMS database (last accessed on July 1, 2019), with further information taken from the AHRI Directory (last accessed on July 1, 2019). 

Models designated as ‘‘Production Stopped’’ within the AHRI Directory are not included in the model count. 

** CCMS database (last accessed on July 16, 2015), with further information taken from the AHRI Directory (last accessed on July 16, 2015). 

Models designated as ‘‘Discontinued’’ within the AHRI Directory are not included in the model count. 

*** Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA) Directory for Direct Heating Equipment 11 (downloaded March 2, 2009). Models designated as ‘‘Discontinued’’ within the GAMA Directory are not included in the model count. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77028 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

In response to the February 2019 RFI, 

AHRI confirmed that there are fewer 

models in the AHRI Directory now than 

there were at the time of the October 

2016 final determination. (AHRI, No. 6 

at p. 4) In response to the February 2019 

RFI, AHAM and AHRI commented 

generally that the market characteristics 

have not changed significantly since the 

analysis was done for the October 2016 

final determination. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 

2; AHRI, No. 6 at p.1) 

The CA IOUs stated that they 

reviewed available models from major 

distributors and catalogs, and they 

identified the models available in each 

product class through an online market 

survey. CA IOUs provided the number 

of models they identified along with 

information on the AFUE values 

available. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2–3) 

The number of models in the gas wall 

fan type and gravity type vented heater 

product classes identified by the CA 

IOUs were different than those 

identified by DOE from its review of the 

CCMS database and the AHRI Directory. 

For the gas wall fan type vented heater 

product class, CA IOUs stated they 

identified 64 products, whereas DOE 

identified 48 models in the CCMS 

database and 50 models in the AHRI 

Directory. For the gas wall gravity type 

vented heater product class, CA IOUs 

stated they identified 43 products, 

whereas DOE identified 50 models in 

the CCMS database and 48 models in 

the AHRI Directory. For the gas floor 

vented heater product class, CA IOUs 

identified 10 products which matched 

the number of models in the CCMS 

database and the AHRI Directory. For 

the gas room vented heater product 

class, CA IOUs did not provide a 

number for the identified models but 

did state that there were a large number 

available on the market. (CA IOUs, No. 

8 at p. 2) DOE identified 19 gas room 

vented heaters in both the CCMS 

database and AHRI Directory. 

The discrepancies between the gas 

wall fan type and gas wall gravity type 

vented heater model counts identified 

by CA IOUs and the model counts 

identified by DOE from the CCMS 

database and AHRI Directory may have 

arisen from CA IOUs’ review of the 

market through online sources and 

catalog review where the product class 

may not have been immediately 

apparent. The AHRI Directory provides 

information on the DHE and heat 

circulation types which are used to 

identify each model’s product class 

(information which is not publicly 

available in the CCMS database). The 

information in the AHRI Directory is 

provided directly by AHRI-member 

manufacturers, and as such, products 

are classified directly by manufacturers. 

Similarly, the DOE CCMS database 

relies on manufacturer submissions. 

Manufacturers of covered products are 

required to submit to DOE a certification 

report certifying that each basic model 

meets the applicable energy 

conservation standard(s) before 

distributing in commerce any basic 

model. The certification report includes 

general information such as the 

manufacturer and model number, and 

product specific information, which for 

DHE includes the AFUE rating. Because 

manufacturers are legally required to 

submit model information to DOE, the 

CCMS database should be the most 

comprehensive listing of models 

available. Further, both the CCMS and 

AHRI database may be more accurate 

than a review of manufacturers’ 

literature, due to manufacturers’ 

familiarity with their products’ 

classifications. The total model count 

for gas wall fan type and gas wall 

gravity type vented heaters provided by 

the CA IOUs is 107, and the total model 

count for the same models when 

examining both the CCMS database and 

AHRI Directory is 100. 

Likewise, the AFUE ranges identified 

by the CA IOUs also do not match the 

ranges DOE identified based on the 

CCMS database and AHRI Directory. For 

gas wall fan type vented heaters with 

input rates below 42,000 Btu/h, CA 

IOUs stated that the AFUE range was 

between 75 and 83 percent, while DOE 

identified models with AFUE values 

between 75 and 90 percent. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at pp. 2–3) This suggests that the 

two condensing models on the market 

were not a part of CA IOUs’ analysis. 

For gas wall fan type vented heaters 

with input rates above 42,000 Btu/h, CA 

IOUs stated that the AFUE range was 

between 74 and 76 percent and that all 

the products they reviewed had AFUE 

values below the minimum energy 

conservation standard of 76 percent. 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2–3) DOE found 

that the models identified by the CA 

IOUs as gas wall fan type vented heaters 

with AFUE below 76 percent were gas 

wall gravity type vented heaters and 

listed in the CCMS database with AFUE 

values which meet the minimum energy 

conservation standards for the gas wall 

gravity type classes. For gas wall gravity 

type vented heaters with input rates less 

than or equal to 27,000 Btu/h, greater 

than 27,000 Btu/h and less than or equal 

to 46,000 Btu/h, and greater than 46,000 

Btu/h, the AFUE ranges identified by 

CA IOUs were 65 to 76 percent, 65 to 

76 percent, and 69 to 71 percent, 

respectively. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2– 

3) DOE identified the AFUE ranges for 

the given input capacities as 65 to 72 

percent, 66 to 70 percent, and 67 to 70 

percent, respectively. The minimum 

energy conservation standard for the 

three gas wall gravity type vented heater 

input rate ranges, from lowest to highest 

input rate, are 65, 66, and 67 percent, 

respectively. For gas wall gravity type 

vented heaters with input rates greater 

than 27,000 Btu/h and less than or equal 

to 46,000 Btu/h, the minimum AFUE in 

the CA IOUs identified range (65 

percent) is less than the minimum 

energy conservation standard (66 

percent), suggesting that at least one 

model was misidentified. 

For gas wall gravity type vented 

heaters with input rates greater than 

46,000 Btu/h, the minimum AFUE 

identified by CA IOUs (69 percent) is 

above the minimum energy 

conservation standard (67 percent), 

suggesting that not all models in this 

input rate range were identified. For gas 

floor vented heaters, CA IOUs identified 

an AFUE range between 57 and 70 

percent across all input rate ranges. (CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2–3) However, all gas 

floor vented heaters identified by DOE 

have AFUE values at the minimum 

energy conservation standard. The 

minimum energy conservation 

standards gas floor vented heaters with 

input rates less than or equal to 37,000 

Btu/h and greater than 37,000 Btu/h are 

57 and 58 percent, respectively. The CA 

IOUs provided links to their 10 

identified gas floor vented heaters, and 

the model numbers matched those 

identified by DOE which have AFUE 

values at the minimum energy 

conservation standard. (CA IOUs, No. 8 

at pp. 2–3) Further, none of the sources 

CA IOUs provided included any 

efficiency or AFUE information. Due to 

various discrepancies DOE has 

identified in the model count and AFUE 

ranges provided by CA IOUs, DOE has 

tentatively decided to continue to use 

the models and AFUE values found 

within the CCMS database and AHRI 

Directory. 

Manufacturers 

The number of manufacturers 

producing vented heaters increased in 

the CCMS database from four to five 

since the October 2016 final 

determination. This new manufacturer 

mainly produces hearth products 

(which are not subject to this proposed 

determination) but has added two gas 

wall gravity type vented heaters with 

input rate and AFUE values that are 

comparable to the input rate and AFUE 

values of other models available on the 

market, and that are similar in design. 

AHRI stated that there are six AHRI 

member manufacturers in the DHE 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77029 

12Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2006-STD-0129-0149. 

industry. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 5) Upon 

review two of the six manufacturers 

identified by AHRI were not identified 

by DOE as manufacturers of vented 

heaters. Rather, DOE found that the two 

additional AHRI manufacturers produce 

hearth products, which as noted 

previously are not a subject of this 

rulemaking. The new manufacturer 

identified by DOE is not an AHRI 

member manufacturer and, 

consequently, was not identified by 

AHRI. 

b. Technology Options for Efficiency 

Improvement 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE listed 

the technology options considered in 

the previous rulemakings to increase 

AFUE and requested comment on these 

options and any other technology 

options that would be relevant to vented 

heaters. 84 FR 6095, 6099 (Feb. 26, 

2019). Specifically, DOE identified the 

technologies in the following Table III.4 

for improving the efficiency of vented 

heaters. 

TABLE III.4—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

FOR VENTED HEATERS

Technology options 

Increased heat exchanger surface area. 

Multiple flues. 

Multiple turns in flue. 

Direct vent (concentric). 

Increased heat transfer coefficient. 

Electronic ignition. 

Thermal vent damper. 

Electrical vent damper. 

Power burner. 

Induced draft. 

Two-stage and modulating operation. 

Improved fan or blower motor efficiency. 

Increased insulation. 

Condensing. 

Condensing Pulse Combustion. 

Air circulation fan. 

Sealed combustion. 

AHAM commented that technologies 

available for improving efficiency have 

not advanced significantly since the 

October 2016 final determination. 

(AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI further 

stated that the use of the technologies 

that DOE identified are generally not 

economically justifiable, that consumers 

will purchase other types of heating 

appliances (e.g., not DHE) before 

purchasing vented heaters with those 

technologies, and that other technology 

options should not be considered in the 

analysis. In addition, AHRI stated that 

the inclusion of electronic ignition can 

minimize the utility of vented heaters. 

(AHRI, No. 6 at p. 3) 

During DOE’s examination of the 

current vented heater market, DOE 

found that the available range of input 

rates and AFUE values of products 

available on the market have stayed 

largely the same since the October 2016 

final determination. Differences in the 

available input rate and AFUE were 

mostly due to models being taken off the 

market as opposed to new models being 

added. This indicates that the 

technology options currently available 

are similar to those examined in both 

the April 2010 final rule and October 

2016 final determination. DOE did not 

identify any additional technologies, 

and there were not any comments 

suggesting additional technology 

options for vented heaters that were not 

previously considered. Therefore, DOE 

used the technology options in Table 

III.4 of this document for its review of 

potential amended vented heater energy 

conservation standard levels in this 

document. 

c. Screening Analysis 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE 

identified and explained why four of the 

technologies on its initial list had been 

previously screened out: (1) Increased 

heat transfer coefficient (practicability 

to manufacture, install, and service); (2) 

power burner (practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service); (3) 

condensing pulse combustion 

(technological feasibility); and (4) 

improved fan or blower motor efficiency 

(practicability to manufacture, install, 

and service). 84 FR 6095, 6099–6100 

(Feb. 26, 2019). DOE also noted that it 

only considers potential efficiency 

levels achieved through the use of 

proprietary designs in the engineering 

analysis if they are not part of a unique 

pathway to achieve the efficiency level 

(i.e., if there are other non-proprietary 

technologies capable of achieving the 

same efficiency level). 84 FR 6095, 6099 

(Feb. 26, 2019). DOE sought comment 

on how these criteria would apply to 

technology options for vented heaters 

and whether the previously screened 

out technology options should continue 

to be screened out. 84 FR 6095, 6100 

(Feb. 26, 2019). 

AHRI stated that the screening criteria 

are appropriate and will result in most, 

if not all, of the technology options 

being eliminated from further 

consideration. AHRI stated elsewhere 

that the technology options presented 

are generally not economically 

justifiable and that AHRI members have 

indicated that customers will often 

purchase other heating appliances 

before purchasing DHE with the listed 

technology options. AHRI further stated 

that incorporation of the technologies 

identified in the February 2019 RFI 

would require significant investment on 

the part of manufacturers in the 

industry. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 3–4) DOE 

notes that the five criteria for removing 

a technology option during the 

screening analysis are technological 

feasibility, practicability to 

manufacture, service or install, adverse 

impacts on consumer utility, adverse 

impacts on product safety, and uniquepathway proprietary technologies. The 

economic justification of a technology 

option is not considered in the 

screening analysis. 

In evaluating potential technology 

options for this notice, DOE maintained 

the list from the February 2019 RFI, as 

discussed in section III.B.3.b of this 

document. In addition, DOE did not 

find that any of the technology options 

should be screened out from 

consideration as options for improving 

the AFUE of vented heaters other than 

the four previously screened-out. 

d. Engineering Analysis 

For the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

determined technology options by 

efficiency level for each of the vented 

heater product classes. These 

technology options are found in section 

5.7 of the April 2010 final rule technical 

support document (TSD) 12 and are 

reproduced in Table III.5 of this 

document. The representative input rate 

ranges from the April 2010 final rule are 

>42,000 Btu/h for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters, >27,000 Btu/h and 

≤46,000 Btu/h for gas wall gravity type 

vented heaters, >37,000 Btu/h for gas 

floor vented heaters, and >27,000 

Btu/h and ≤46,000 Btu/h for gas room 

vented heaters. 75 FR 20112, 20114 

(April 16, 2010). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77030 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.5—APRIL 2010 FINAL RULE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE INPUT

RATE RANGES OF THE VENTED HEATER PRODUCT CLASSES

DHE type Heat circulation type 

Efficiency 

level 

(AFUE) 

Technology 

Gas Wall .................................. Fan Type ................................. * 74 Standing Pilot. 

* 75 Intermittent Ignition and Two-Speed Blower. 

** 76 Intermittent Ignition and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

77 Intermittent Ignition, Two-Speed Blower, and Improved Heat 

Exchanger. 

80 Induced Draft and Electronic Ignition. 

Gravity Type ........................... * 64 Standing Pilot. 

** 66 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

* 68 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

* 69 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

70 Electronic Ignition. 

Gas Floor ................................. All ............................................ * 57 Standing Pilot. 

** 58 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

Gas Room ............................... All ............................................ * 64 Standing Pilot. 

* 65 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

* 66 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

** 67 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

68 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

* † 83 Electronic Ignition and Multiple Heat Exchanger Design. 

* No longer available on the market. 

** Efficiency level adopted in as the Federal standard the April 2010 final rule at the representative input rate. 

* † This was a theoretical model and was not on the market at the time of the April 2010 final rule analysis. 

DOE reviewed the technology options 

available in the current vented heater 

market for the representative input rate 

ranges from the April 2010 final rule. 

The available efficiency levels and 

associated technologies are shown in 

Table III.6 of this document. 

TABLE III.6—CURRENT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL OF THE REPRESENTATIVE INPUT RATE RANGES OF

THE VENTED HEATER PRODUCT CLASSES FROM THE APRIL 2010 FINAL RULE

DHE type Heat circulation type 

Efficiency 

level 

(AFUE) 

Technology 

Gas Wall .................................. Fan Type ................................. 76 Intermittent Ignition and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

77 Intermittent Ignition, Two-Speed Blower, and Improved Heat 

Exchanger. 

80 Induced Draft and Electronic Ignition. 

* 90 Electronic Ignition and Condensing. 

Gravity Type ........................... 66 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

68 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

69 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

70 Electronic Ignition. 

Gas Floor ................................. All ............................................ 58 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

Gas Room ............................... All ............................................ 67 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

68 Standing Pilot and Improved Heat Exchanger. 

** 83 Electronic Ignition and Multiple Heat Exchanger Design. 

* Condensing gas wall fan type vented heaters exist in an input rate range that was not the representative input rate range in the April 2010 

final rule. Thus, the max-tech level presented is theoretical for the representative input range, but exists in models on the market in other input 

ranges. 

** This is a theoretical efficiency level based on the analysis for the April 2010 final rule, and is not available in any model currently on the 

market. 

The maximum available efficiency 

level is the highest efficiency model 

currently available on the market for 

that class. The max-tech efficiency level 

represents the theoretical maximum 

possible efficiency if all available design 

options are incorporated in a model. In 

some cases, models at the max-tech 

efficiency level are not commercially 

available because, although the level is 

technically achievable, manufacturers 

have determined that it is not 

economically feasible (either for the 

manufacturer to produce or for 

consumers to purchase). However, DOE 

seeks to determine the max-tech level 

for purposes of its analyses. The current 

maximum available efficiencies for the 

11 existing product classes are included 

in Table III.7, along with the maximum 

available efficiencies from the April 

2010 final rule and those evaluated for 

the October 2016 final determination. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77031 

TABLE III.7—MAXIMUM AVAILABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR THE VENTED HEATER PRODUCT CLASSES—CURRENT AND

PREVIOUS RULEMAKINGS

Product class Input rate, kBtu/h 2019 

October 2016 

final 

determination 

April 2010 

final rule 

Gas Wall Fan Type ......................................... ≤42 ................................................................. 90 92 83 

>42 ................................................................. 80 80 80 

Gas Wall Gravity Type .................................... ≤27 ................................................................. 72 80 80 

>27 and ≤46 ................................................... 70 69 69 

>46 ................................................................. 70 70 69 

Gas Floor ........................................................ ≤37 ................................................................. 57 57 57 

>37 ................................................................. 58 58 58 

Gas Room ....................................................... ≤20 ................................................................. 71 71 59 

>20 and ≤27 ................................................... 66 66 63 

>27 and ≤46 ................................................... 68 68 81 

>46 ................................................................. 70 70 70 

In the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

determined max-tech efficiency levels 

using the technology options available 

at that time. For gas wall fan type 

vented heaters with an input rate over 

42,000 Btu/h, DOE identified a max-tech 

efficiency level design with induced 

draft combustion and electronic 

ignition, resulting in an AFUE of 80 

percent. For gas wall gravity type vented 

heaters with an input rate over 27,000 

Btu/h and up to 46,000 Btu/h, DOE 

identified 70 percent AFUE as a 

theoretical max-tech level, which was 

achievable with an improved heat 

exchanger design and electronic 

ignition. For gas floor vented heaters 

with an input rate over 37,000 Btu/h, 

DOE identified the max-tech efficiency 

level as 58 percent AFUE, which DOE 

stated could be reached using a standing 

pilot light and an improved heat 

exchanger design. For gas room vented 

heaters with an input rate over 27,000 

Btu/h and up to 46,000 Btu/h, DOE 

identified a theoretical max-tech 

efficiency level of 83 percent AFUE, 

which manufacturers could achieve 

using an electronic ignition and a 

multiple heat exchanger design. 75 FR 

20112, 20145–20146 (April 16, 2010). 

In the October 2016 final 

determination, DOE noted that 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heater models with input rates at or 

below 42,000 Btu/h had become 

available, and DOE considered this the 

max-tech level for all gas wall fan type 

vented heaters. Based on information 

obtained during manufacturer 

interviews and a manufacturer 

production cost developed through a 

teardown analysis performed for the 

proposed determination, DOE 

determined that condensing technology 

was not economically justified for gas 

wall fan type vented heaters at that 

time. 81 FR 21276, 21280 (April 11, 

2016); 81 FR 71325, 71328–71329 (Oct. 

17, 2016). 

Since the October 2016 final 

determination, the highest efficiency 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heater, with an input rate at or below 

42,000 Btu/h, available on the market 

has been rerated (e.g., the same model 

number has been rated with at least two 

different AFUE values between the 

October 2016 final determination and 

this NOPD) from an AFUE of 92 percent 

to an AFUE of 90 percent, which is the 

only condensing AFUE level on the 

market. The maximum available AFUE 

for gas wall gravity type vented heaters, 

with an input rate over 27,000 Btu/h 

and up to 46,000 Btu/h, increased to 70 

percent, which is the max-tech level 

analyzed in the April 2010 final rule. In 

total, the maximum available AFUE 

decreased for two input rate ranges and 

increased for one input rate range. All 

other input rate ranges have the same 

maximum available AFUE as in the 

October 2016 final determination. 

In response to the February 2019 RFI, 

AHRI stated that condensing, multistage vented heaters equipped with 

combustion and circulating fans should 

be considered the max-tech technology 

option. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 4) The 

commenter added that condensing 

vented heaters continue to be 

significantly more expensive to produce 

than non-condensing models and are by 

and large not economically justified. 

AHRI also stated that only one 

manufacturer produces condensing 

vented heaters and that there are only 

two models listed in the AHRI 

Directory. Id. Lastly, AHRI generally 

recommended against the use of the 

maximum available efficiency levels as 

possible energy conservation standards. 

Id. 

Joint Advocates estimated that 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heaters would reduce energy use by 

about 17 to 18 percent over models at 

the baseline. (Joint Advocates, No. 7 at 

p. 2) CA IOUs stated that higher 

condensing efficiencies could be 

achieved through the use of 

microprocessor controls, a two-stage 

heat exchanger, and multi-speed 

blowers for venting and air circulation. 

According to the CA IOUs, there are two 

manufacturers of condensing vented 

heaters, so those commenters 

recommended that DOE consider the 

condensing technology option. CA IOUs 

asserted that as this option gains 

popularity with manufacturers, there is 

the likelihood of increased market share 

leading to larger production volumes 

and a decrease in consumer costs due to 

economies of scale and increased 

competition. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4) 

As noted, AHRI stated that there is 

one manufacturer of condensing gas 

wall fan type vented heaters, whereas 

the CA IOUs stated that there are two 

manufacturers and supplied 

manufacturer literature from the two 

manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 4; CA 

IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4) To assess this 

discrepancy, DOE reviewed the 

supplied literature and found that the 

literature was last updated in 2017 and 

could not find the models on the 

manufacturer’s website. Consequently, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

there is only one manufacturer of 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heaters on the market at the time of this 

NOPD. 

Consistent with comments and the 

evaluation in the October 2016 final 

determination, DOE considers 

condensing technology to be the ‘‘maxtech’’ levels for gas wall fan type vented 

heaters. 

As explained in section II.B.6 of this 

document, DOE published the July 2019 

NOPIR in the Federal Register which 

proposed to interpret EPCA to provide 

that adoption of energy conservation 

standards that would limit the market to 

natural gas and/or propane furnaces, 

water heaters, or similarly-situated 

products/equipment (where permitted 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77032 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

13NFPA 54–2018 defines a ‘‘Category IV Vented 

Appliance’’ as an appliance that operates with a 

positive vent static pressure and with a vent gas 

temperature that can cause excessive condensate 

production in the vent. 

14NFPA 54–2018 defines a ‘‘Category I Vented 

Appliance’’ as an appliance that operates with a 

non-positive vent static pressure and with a vent 

gas temperature that avoids excessive condensate 

production in the vent. 

15NFPA 54–2018 defines a ‘‘Category III Vented 

Appliance’’ as an appliance that operates with a 

positive vent static pressure and with a vent gas 

temperature that avoids excessive condensate 

production in the vent. 

by EPCA) that use condensing 

combustion technology would result in 

the unavailability of a performancerelated feature within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). 84 FR 33011, 33021 (July 19, 

2019). In light of the July 2019 NOPIR, 

DOE further investigated the venting 

options associated with condensing and 

non-condensing DHE. Categories of 

venting appliances are defined in the 

2018 National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) 54/American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) 

Z223.1 National Fuel Gas Code, titled 

‘‘NFPA 54 National Fuel Gas Code’’ 

(NFPA 54–2018). Currently, the only 

models on the market using condensing 

technology are gas wall fan type vented 

heaters. Through an examination of 

these products’ installation literature, 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heaters are installed using Category IV 13

venting. Non-condensing gas wall fan 

type vented heaters are typically 

installed using either Category I 14 or 

Category III 15 venting. Therefore, 

products using condensing technology 

require a different venting system (i.e., 

Category IV venting) than noncondensing DHE (which typically use 

either Category I or Category III venting). 

As a result, DHE are similarly situated 

relative to residential furnaces and 

commercial water heaters, in that 

replacing an existing non-condensing 

vented heater with a vented heater that 

uses condensing technology may require 

significant changes to the existing vent 

system. As such, DOE’s proposed 

interpretation in the July 2019 NOPIR, 

if finalized, would apply to DHE. 

Under the proposed interpretation in 

the July 2019 NOPIR, DOE would 

consider whether non-condensing 

combustion technology justified a 

separate product class under 42 U.S.C. 

6296(q). If DOE determined that such 

technology did justify a separate 

product class for DHE, DOE would 

consider establishing separate standards 

for a condensing DHE product class and 

a non-condensing DHE product class (or 

through classes that maintain venting 

compatibility, as DOE determines 

appropriate). As a result, although DOE 

considers condensing technology to 

represent the max-tech design for gas 

wall fan type vented heaters, if a 

separate product class were to be 

established for condensing gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, there would be no 

additional energy savings associated 

with the max-tech level, as discussed in 

sections III.B.3.e and III.B.3.h of this 

document. 

National Grid stated that it found a 

gas floor vented heater with a rated 

AFUE of 70 percent and suggested that 

the minimum AFUE for gas floor vented 

heaters should be increased. (National 

Grid, No. 9 at p. 1) However, all of the 

gas floor vented heater models that DOE 

found in the CCMS database and AHRI 

Directory have rated AFUE values at the 

baseline (i.e., 57 percent for models at 

or below 37,000 Btu/h and 58 percent 

for models above 37,000 Btu/h). DOE 

was unable to find the model identified 

by National Grid in its product research, 

and the Department seeks additional 

information regarding the highest 

available efficiency and maximum 

possible efficiency for gas floor vented 

heaters. Thus, for the purposes of this 

analysis, DOE tentatively considers the 

maximum available AFUE values found 

in Table III.7 of this document to be the 

max-tech efficiency levels. 

The Joint Advocates and the CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to perform an 

engineering analysis on all 11 product 

classes of vented heaters. (Joint 

Advocates, No. 7 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 

9 at p. 2) The Joint Advocates also stated 

that there is significant market 

availability of gas wall vented heaters, 

both fan type and gravity type, which 

exceed the current energy conservation 

standard levels. (Joint Advocates, No. 7 

at p. 1) DOE agrees that there are models 

on the market which exceed the current 

energy conservation standards, but as 

discussed in this section, the technology 

options have not changed significantly 

since the April 2010 final rule and 

October 2016 final determination. 

Because the technology options have 

not changed significantly, the energy 

use of all vented heaters remains 

approximately the same (see section 

III.B.3.e of this document). As discussed 

in section III.B.3.e of this document, 

DOE has tentatively determined that at 

max-tech the potential energy savings 

resulting from amended standards, set at 

levels based on the technology options 

analyzed during the April 2010 final 

rule and October 2016 final 

determination, would not result in 

significant energy savings. Furthermore, 

as discussed in section III.C.2 of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the potential benefits 

from amended standards would be 

outweighed by burdens on 

manufacturers, in particular, small 

business manufacturers, as vented 

heater shipments have previously 

declined, and there is no evidence that 

shipments have increased since the 

October 2016 final determination. As 

such, a full engineering analysis of all 

11 product classes of vented heaters is 

not necessary. 

Manufacturer Production Costs 

After establishing the efficiency levels 

in the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

estimated the manufacturer production 

cost (MPC) of attaining each efficiency 

level based on the technology options 

identified for that level. The MPC takes 

into account the costs for material, 

labor, depreciation, and overhead. 

These values were developed based on 

product teardowns that generated bills 

of materials for all components and 

manufacturing processes required to 

manufacture vented heaters at a given 

efficiency level for each product class. 

DOE uses these bills of material, along 

with information on material and 

component prices, costs for labor, 

depreciation, and overhead to derive the 

MPC. In development of the April 2010 

final rule, manufacturer interviews were 

conducted to verify the accuracy of the 

inputs to DOE’s analysis of MPCs (e.g., 

material prices, labor rates) and the 

resulting MPCs. 75 FR 20112, 20147– 

20148 (April 16, 2010). 

DOE reviewed its April 2010 final 

rule engineering analysis to determine 

whether the results are still valid in the 

context of the current market. As the 

technology options have not changed 

significantly since the April 2010 final 

rule and the market conditions for 

manufacturers remains substantially the 

same as the previous rulemaking (i.e., 

production volumes remain similar or 

slightly lower than previously projected, 

while material prices and labor rates are 

also similar), DOE has tentatively 

determined that the engineering 

analysis performed during the April 

2010 final rule is still valid. DOE also 

reviewed retail prices for models 

currently available on the market and 

found that the current retail prices are 

comparable to those published in 

chapter 8, section 8.2.3.5 of the April 

2010 final rule TSD, when adjusted for 

inflation. Because DOE has not found 

distribution channels or mark-ups to 

have changed since April 2010, the 

similarity of the predicted retail prices 

in the April 2010 final rule analysis to 

those of current products indicates that 

the manufacturer production costs are 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77033 

16For new construction, builder mark-up is also 

included. For the April 2010 final rule, the new 

construction market shares are 10 percent for 

vented gas wall fan, vented gas wall gravity, and 

vented gas room heaters, and 0 percent for vented 

gas floor furnace heaters. 

also likely to be unchanged from the 

April 2010 final rule analysis. 

e. Energy Use Analysis 

Table III.8 presents the average energy 

consumption, from section 7.3.6 of the 

April 2010 final rule TSD, for each 

vented heater product class and 

efficiency level. DOE has tentatively 

concluded that the current average 

energy consumption for these vented 

heaters is comparable to the estimates 

developed for the April 2010 final rule 

and relied on in the October 2016 final 

determination, as the technology 

options at each efficiency level have not 

changed substantially. 

TABLE III.8—AVERAGE ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR THE VENTED HEATER PRODUCT CLASSES FROM APRIL 2010 FINAL

RULE

DHE type Heat circulation type 

Efficiency 

level 

(AFUE) 

Average energy consumption 

Gas 

(MMBtu/yr) 

Electricity 

(kWh/yr) 

Gas Wall ......................................................... Fan Type ........................................................ * 74 29.9 38.6 

* 75 28.2 45.7 

** 76 27.8 45.2 

77 27.4 44.7 

80 26.3 66.2 

Gravity Type ................................................... * 64 29.9 0.0 

** 66 29.0 0.0 

* 68 28.2 0.0 

* 69 27.8 0.0 

70 26.5 17.7 

Gas Floor ........................................................ All ................................................................... * 57 30.8 0.0 

** 58 30.3 0.0 

Gas Room ....................................................... All ................................................................... * 64 27.5 0.0 

* 65 27.1 0.0 

* 66 26.7 0.0 

** 67 26.3 0.0 

68 26.0 0.0 

* † 83 20.2 81.1 

* No longer available on the market. 

** Efficiency level adopted in as the Federal standard the April 2010 final rule at the representative input rate. 

† This was a theoretical model and was not on the market at the time of the April 2010 final rule analysis. 

As discussed in section III.B.3.d of 

this document, in the event that 

amended energy conservation standards 

are economically justified for gas wall 

fan type vented heaters at a level which 

would require condensing technology, 

then at that time, separate product 

classes would likely have to be 

considered to effectively separate noncondensing and condensing 

technologies in order to preserve noncondensing products, consistent with 

the proposals in the July 2019 NOPIR 

and September 2020 SNOPIR. Also as 

stated in section III.B.3.d of this 

document, there is only one available 

condensing AFUE level on the market, 

which is identified as the max-tech 

level. As such, the baseline AFUE for a 

potential condensing product class 

would be set at the only available AFUE 

level, and there would be no potential 

for energy savings in a condensing gas 

wall fan type vented heater product 

class, so, therefore, DOE has not 

presented energy use values for 

condensing gas wall fan type vented 

heaters. 

f. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

LCC is the total consumer expense 

over the life of an appliance, including 

the total installed cost and operating 

costs (including energy expenditures, 

maintenance, and repair). DOE 

discounts future operating costs to the 

time of purchase, and sums them over 

the lifetime of the product. 

The total installed cost is determined 

by combining the installation cost with 

the equipment price. The equipment 

price is determined using the MPC and 

applying a manufacturer mark-up, a 

wholesaler mark-up, a mechanical 

contractor mark-up, and sales tax.16 As 

presented in section III.B.3.d of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the MPC has not 

changed significantly since the April 

2010 final rule. DOE has also tentatively 

concluded that the average mark-ups, 

sales taxes, and installation costs are 

comparable to the estimates developed 

for the April 2010 final rule. Therefore, 

the total installed costs are estimated to 

have remained approximately the same, 

as compared to the April 2010 final rule, 

for products that are still on the market, 

as the technology options have not 

changed. DOE additionally estimates 

that the total installed cost for the 90- 

percent AFUE gas wall fan type vented 

heater would be considerably higher 

compared to lower efficiency gas wall 

fan type vented heaters, since there are 

considerable development and 

production costs (as discussed in 

section III.B.3.d of this document), as 

well as additional installation costs. 

The annual operating cost is 

determined by the energy consumption 

of vented heaters, the energy prices of 

the fuel used, and any repair and 

maintenance costs that would be 

required. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the energy 

consumption (as discussed in section 

III.B.3.e of this document) and repair 

and maintenance costs associated with 

each efficiency level have not changed 

significantly from that in the April 2010 

final rule for the vented heaters that are 

still on the market, as the technology 

options have not changed. DOE 

additionally estimates that the average 

energy consumption for the 90-percent 

AFUE gas wall fan type vented heater 

would be proportionally lower 

compared to the 80-percent AFUE gas 

wall fan type vented heaters, and repair 

and maintenance costs would be higher 

than for the 80-percent AFUE gas wall 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77034 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

17U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Annual Energy 

Outlook 2010 with Projections to 2035 (Early 

Release) (Available at: https://www.eia.gov/ 

outlooks/aeo/) (Last accessed August 13, 2020). 

18For purposes of the updated analysis, DOE 

estimated 2027 as the first year of compliance by 

assuming that the publication of a potential final 

rule would occur by 2022 and any amended 

standards would apply to DHEs manufactured 5 

years after this date. (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(A)(ii)). 

19U.S. Department of Energy—Energy 

Information Administration, Annual Energy 

Outlook 2020 with Projections to 2050 (Available at: 

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/) (Last accessed 

August 13, 2020). 

20For the April 2010 final rule, the fraction of 

propane installations is 12 percent for vented gas 

wall fan and vented gas wall gravity, 9 percent for 

vented gas floor furnace heaters, and 38 percent for 

vented gas room heaters. 

21AHRI Comment to the NOPD for Direct Heating 

Equipment published in 2016 (June 10, 2016) 

(Comment No. 7) (Available at: https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2016-BTSTD-0007-0007) (Last accessed Aug. 13, 2020). 

22 DOE used the April 2010 final rule National 

Impact Analysis (NIA) spreadsheet for DHE to 

calculate the site energy savings difference between 

the max-tech level (TSL 6) and current standard 

level (then TSL 2). The site energy savings are 

available in the ‘‘National Impacts Summary’’ 

worksheet for each product class. The site energy 

savings calculation was adjusted to take into 

account the site energy savings over 30 years of 

product shipments (2013–2042) and to include the 

full lifetime of products shipped over the 30-year 

period (2013–2042). The published version of the 

DHE NIA spreadsheet only accounted for site 

energy savings from 2013–2042. The resulting 30- 

year site energy savings per product class are: 0.02 

quads for gas wall fan type vented heaters, 0.07 

quads for gas wall gravity type vented heaters, 0.00 

quads for gas floor vented heaters, and 0.04 quads 

for gas room vented heaters. The DHE NIA 

spreadsheet (published March 23, 2010) (Available 

fan type vented heaters. To assess the 

impact of energy prices, DOE compared 

the April 2010 final rule’s average 

energy prices for 2013 (i.e., the starting 

year in the analysis) to a likely starting 

year if DOE performed a revised 

analysis in a new rulemaking. The April 

2010 final rule used Energy Information 

Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy 

Outlook (AEO) 2010 energy price 

trends.17 To assess the impact of 

updated energy price estimates, DOE 

used EIA’s AEO 2020 energy price 

trends to estimate the energy prices in 

2027,18 the expected compliance year 

for the updated analysis.19 DOE has 

found that both natural gas and propane 

prices are significantly lower in 2027 

($10.99/MMBtu in 2019$ and $28.20/ 

MMBtu in 2019$, respectively) 

compared to the 2013 natural gas and 

propane prices used in the April 2010 

final rule ($13.31/MMBtu in 2019$ and 

$32.71/MMBtu in 2019$, 

respectively).20 Additionally, the 30- 

year trends are comparable in the two 

AEO editions. Due to comparable energy 

use and lower energy prices, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the annual 

operating cost of vented heaters has 

either decreased or not changed 

significantly from that estimated in the 

April 2010 final rule. 

As vented heaters have not 

significantly changed since the April 

2010 final rule, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the product lifetime has 

remained largely the same. DOE has also 

tentatively determined that residential 

discount rates have not changed 

significantly from those in the April 

2010 final rule. 

Because the total installed costs are 

estimated not to have changed 

significantly, and operating costs are 

estimated to be comparable, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the LCC 

savings for each efficiency level of 

vented heaters are similar to the 

estimates in the April 2010 final rule. 

Further, DOE has tentatively determined 

that the relative comparisons between 

each efficiency level for each product 

class remain unchanged and that the 

conclusions from the April 2010 final 

rule and October 2016 final 

determination are still applicable. 

The PBP is the amount of time it takes 

the consumer, in a typical case, to 

recover the estimated higher purchase 

expense of more energy-efficient 

products through lower operating costs. 

Numerically, the PBP is the ratio of the 

increase in purchase expense (i.e., due 

to a more energy-efficient design) to the 

decrease in annual operating 

expenditures. This type of calculation is 

known as a ‘‘simple’’ payback period, 

because it does not take into account 

changes in operating expense over time 

or the time value of money (i.e., the 

calculation is done at an effective 

discount rate of zero percent). Payback 

periods are expressed in years. Payback 

periods greater than the life of the 

product indicate that the increased total 

installed cost is not recovered by the 

reduced operating expenses. 

As previously stated, DOE has 

estimated that the total installed costs 

have not changed significantly, and 

operating costs are comparable to the 

April 2010 final rule results. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively determined that the 

‘‘simple’’ payback period for each 

efficiency level of vented heaters is 

similar to the ‘‘simple’’ payback period 

results from the April 2010 final rule. 

Further, DOE has tentatively determined 

that the relative comparisons between 

each efficiency level for each product 

class remain unchanged and that the 

conclusions from the April 2010 final 

rule and October 2016 final 

determination are still applicable. 

g. Shipments 

In the February 2019 RFI, DOE stated 

that from the April 2010 final rule, the 

Department has vented heater historical 

shipment data from AHRI for gas wall 

vented heaters from 1990 to 1998 and 

from 2000 to 2006, for gas floor vented 

heaters from 1990 to 2007, and for gas 

room vented heaters from 1990 to 2005. 

DOE also has limited disaggregated 

shipments for fan type and gravity type 

gas wall vented heaters and by input 

capacity. DOE requested comment on 

the annual sales data (i.e., number of 

shipments) for each vented heater 

product class from 2008–2018. 84 FR 

6095, 6104–6105 (Feb. 26, 2019). 

AHRI stated that it was conducting a 

special data collection to gather 

shipment data for each vented heater 

product class from 2016–2018, and that 

these data will be provided to DOE at a 

later date. AHRI also stated that 

shipment data from 2008–2015 was 

provided in response to the NOPD for 

direct heating equipment published in 

2016. (AHRI, No. 6 at p. 4) 

In 2016, AHRI presented data 

showing the percentage change in total 

shipments for the years 2010–2015 

compared with the total shipments over 

the period 2001–2006, estimating that 

gas wall vented heater shipments were 

21 percent less, that direct vent gas wall 

vented heater (a form of gas wall vented 

heater) shipments were 31 percent less, 

and that gas room vented heater 

shipments were 44 percent less.21 AHRI 

did not have an active statistics program 

for gas floor vented heaters and was 

attempting to collect annual shipments 

information for recent years through a 

special data collection. 

At this time, AHRI has not submitted 

data for the 2016–2018 time period. 

However, DOE will consider any 

additional data submissions from AHRI 

(or other interested parties) when 

making the final determination with 

respect to whether amended standards 

for DHE are justified. 

h. National Energy Savings 

As explained in sections III.B.3.d 

through III.B.3.g of this document, the 

technology options, energy use, and 

shipments for DHE have not changed 

significantly since the April 2010 final 

rule and October 2016 final 

determination. Accordingly, the 

national energy savings are expected to 

be largely the same as the national 

energy savings projected in the April 

2010 final rule. In the April 2010 final 

rule, DOE estimated that the max-tech 

TSL (TSL 6) would result in an 

additional 0.13 quads of site energy 

savings over 30 years, as compared to 

the adopted TSL (i.e., the current 

standard levels).22 The site energy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77035 

at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2006-STD-0129-0148) (Last accessed Aug. 13, 2020). 23 DOE used the April 2010 final rule NIA 

spreadsheet for DHE to calculate the total 30-year 

site energy consumption at the current standard 

levels (then TSL 2). The ‘‘Base Case Consumption’’ 

worksheet is used to calculate the total site energy 

consumption at the current standard levels for each 

product class. This worksheet includes the total 

‘‘source energy (Quads)’’ per product class. DOE 

converted the total source energy to site energy by 

removing the site-to-source factors (which come 

from the ‘‘EnergyPrices SitetoSource’’ worksheet) 

from the calculation. The site energy consumption 

calculation was then expanded to take into account 

the site energy consumption over 30 years of 

product shipments (2013–2042) and include the full 

lifetime of products shipped over the 30 year period 

(2013–2042), to match the site energy savings 

calculation. Finally, the totals per product class 

were adjusted to take into account the energy 

savings for the current standard (then TSL 2). The 

resulting 30-year site energy consumption totals per 

product class are: 0.55 quads for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters, 1.30 quads for gas wall gravity type 

vented heaters, 0.02 quads for gas floor vented 

heaters, and 0.24 quads for gas room vented heaters. 

The 0.13 quads of 30-year site energy savings from 

the max-tech TSL are then divided by the resulting 

total value of 2.11 quads for the 30-year site energy 

consumption at the current standard levels, which 

results in the 6-percent value. 

savings from the max-tech TSL 

represent approximately a six-percent 

reduction compared to the total 30-year 

site energy consumption, as compared 

to the current standard levels.23

The April 2010 final rule did not 

contemplate or include a TSL with 

specific provisions for a condensing gas 

wall fan type vented heater. As 

discussed in section III.B.3.b of this 

document, pursuant to DOE’s tentative 

interpretation from the July 2019 

NOPIR, amending energy conservation 

standards to a level which would 

require condensing technology would 

result in the unavailability of a 

performance-related feature within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4). 84 FR 

33011, 33021 (July 11, 2019). As such, 

when evaluating energy savings from 

potential energy conservation standards, 

separate non-condensing and 

condensing product classes are 

investigated as a possible outcome of 

the Gas Industry Petition. DOE 

identified one manufacturer of 

condensing gas fan type vented heaters 

which produces two models at 90- 

percent AFUE. Because there was only 

one efficiency level available on the 

market and analyzed at the condensing 

level, there would be no potential 

additional energy savings from setting a 

condensing level for the divided gas 

wall fan type vented heater product 

class. 

i. Manufacturer Impacts 

December 2009 NOPR 

As stated in section II.B.3.b of this 

document, in the NOPR that preceded 

the April 2010 final rule, DOE proposed 

to amend standards for vented heaters to 

TSL 3. 74 FR 65852, 65973 (Dec. 11, 

2009). In response to that proposal, DOE 

received several comments expressing 

concerns that: 

• Shipments of vented heaters were 

low, and, therefore, potential energy 

savings were low; 

• Low shipments would make it 

difficult for manufacturers to recoup the 

costs to comply with amended 

standards; 

• Product offerings may be limited as 

a response to amended standards; 

• Manufacturers may exit the 

industry as a result of amended 

standards; 

• Employment may be negatively 

impacted due to reduced product lines 

and insufficient return on investment. 

75 FR 20112, 20218 (April 16, 2010). 

April 2010 Final Rule 

In the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

additionally found that the industry had 

gone through considerable 

consolidation due to decreased 

shipments, that product lines were 

primarily maintained to provide 

replacement products, and that some 

small business manufacturers could be 

disproportionately affected by a morestringent standard. 75 FR 20112, 20199, 

and 20218 (April 16, 2010). As 

mentioned in section III.B.3.g of this 

document, the April 2010 final rule 

presented a trend of declining annual 

shipments throughout the 30-year 

analysis period. As discussed in section 

II.B.2.b of this document, DOE 

ultimately adopted standards at TSL 2 

for vented heaters, which was one TSL 

below the proposed level. In rejecting 

proposed TSL 3, DOE concluded that 

the benefits of higher potential standard 

levels would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers, 

the large capital conversion costs that 

could result in a large reduction in INPV 

for the manufacturers of vented heaters, 

and the potential for small business 

manufacturers of vented heaters to 

reduce their product offerings or to be 

forced to exit the market completely, 

thereby reducing competition in the 

vented heater market. 75 FR 20112, 

20218–20219 (April 16, 2010). 

October 2016 Final Determination 

In the April 2016 proposed 

determination that preceded the October 

2016 final determination, DOE 

tentatively determined that the 

conclusions presented in the April 2010 

final rule were still valid. 81 FR 21276, 

21281 (April 11, 2016). Further, DOE 

has found that the number of models 

offered in each of the vented heater 

product classes decreased in the time 

between the April 2010 final rule and 

the October 2016 final determination, 

which indicated that the vented heater 

market was shrinking and product lines 

were mainly maintained as 

replacements for current vented heater 

products. 81 FR 71325, 71327 (Oct. 17, 

2016). 

In the October 2016 final 

determination DOE noted that the 

number of manufacturers declined from 

six to four, indicating consolidation in 

the vented heater industry. 81 FR 71325, 

71328 (Oct. 17, 2016). 

Current Analysis of Manufacturer 

Impacts 

In DOE’s most recent review of the 

market, a total of five manufacturers 

were identified within the vented heater 

industry, four of which are domestic 

small businesses. In the February 2019 

RFI, DOE requested comment on annual 

sales data for each vented heater 

product class from 2008–2018. 84 FR 

6095, 6105 (Feb. 26, 2019). DOE did not 

receive any comment or information 

regarding the number and classification 

of manufacturers presented in the 

February 2019 RFI and, therefore, 

considers its previous analysis of 

industry shipments to still be valid. 

DOE also did not receive any comments 

or data suggesting that DOE’s analysis of 

the DHE market in the April 2016 NOPD 

was inaccurate. Because the market 

conditions are substantially the same as 

when DOE considered manufacturer 

impacts for the April 2010 final rule and 

October 2016 final determination, DOE 

tentatively concludes that 

manufacturers would likely face similar 

impacts under more-stringent standards 

as those previously discussed. 

4. Other Issues 

a. Fuel Switching and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

NPGA urged DOE to analyze the 

potential of fuel switching and 

correlated effects on energy efficiency. 

(NPGA, No. 3 at p. 1) The commenter 

requested that DOE utilize a full-fuelcycle (FFC) analysis when calculating 

energy consumption across all product 

classes and energy types, instead of 

utilizing a site energy analysis to 

determine whether to amend the energy 

standards for DHE. Id. NPGA further 

stated that unless DOE assesses the 

potential of fuel-switching, it would be 

prejudicing some energy sources. Id. 

Because consumers are sensitive to 

the cost of heating equipment, a 

standard level that significantly 

increases purchase price may induce 

some consumers to switch to a different 

heating product than they would have 

otherwise installed (i.e., in the case 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77036 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

24CCMS is available at: https://

www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms/. 

where no new standards are 

established). In the April 2010 final 

rule, DOE was unable to find any data 

it could use to estimate the extent of 

fuel and product switching in its 

analysis. 75 FR 20112, 20165 (April 16, 

2010). As stated, the April 2010 final 

rule analysis is part of DOE’s 

consideration for the determination 

proposed in this document. DOE uses 

FFC measures of energy use and 

greenhouse gas and other emissions in 

the national impact analyses and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. See 77 FR 49701 (August 

17, 2012). As previously explained in 

the context of rulemakings for other 

products, it would not be appropriate to 

incorporate FCC in an energy efficiency 

metric for energy conservation 

standards. See 81 FR 2628, 2639 (Jan. 

15, 2016). First, EPCA provides that 

‘‘energy conservation standards’’ must 

prescribe a ‘‘minimum level of energy 

efficiency’’ or a ‘‘maximum quantity of 

energy use’’; the statute subsequently 

provides that ‘‘energy use’’ is the 

quantity of energy directly consumed by 

a consumer product at the point of use, 

and it defines ‘‘energy efficiency’’ as the 

ratio of useful heat output of services 

from a consumer product to the energy 

use of such product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)– 

(6)) Moreover, the mathematical 

adjustment to the site-based energy 

descriptor to calculate an FFC value 

relies on information that is updated 

annually. If DOE were to include such 

an adjustment to the energy 

conservation standard, DOE would be 

required to update standards (or 

applicable test procedure) annually. 

b. Environmental Analysis, Market 

Failures, and Market-Based Compliance 

PI NYU recommended that DOE 

consider the environmental costs when 

analyzing the national impact and 

selecting the maximum economically 

justified efficiency level. PI NYU further 

stated that the benefits from greenhouse 

gas emissions reductions should be 

considered and that global, as opposed 

to domestic-only, estimates of the social 

cost of greenhouse gas reduction should 

be used in the national impact analysis. 

(PI NYU, No. 4 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE notes that its 

rulemaking analyses include 

consideration of environmental impacts 

resulting from potential amended 

standards. In the April 2010 final rule, 

DOE performed an environmental 

assessment and considered the benefits 

resulting from reduced emissions. 75 FR 

20112, 20176–20180 (April 16, 2010). 

Since that time, new legal authority has 

impacted DOE’s approach to 

environmental analysis in regulatory 

rulemaking. Specifically, section 5(c) of 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13783, 

‘‘Promoting Energy Independence and 

Economic Growth,’’ 82 FR 16093 (March 

31, 2017), directs agencies to maintain 

consistency with the guidance 

contained in the Office of Management 

and Budget’s Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 

2003) when monetizing the value of 

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 

regulations, including with respect to 

consideration of domestic versus 

international impacts and appropriate 

discount rates. Section E.1 of OMB 

Circular A–4 provides that ‘‘analysis 

should focus on benefits and costs that 

accrue to citizens and residents of the 

United States,’’ and it further provides 

that ‘‘[w]here you choose to evaluate a 

regulation that is likely to have effects 

beyond the borders of the United States, 

these effects should be reported 

separately.’’ Accordingly, DOE has 

structured its environmental assessment 

and regulatory analyses so as to conform 

to these legal requirements. 

The Joint Advocates stated that DHE 

are largely used in older homes, many 

of which may be occupied by renters. 

The commenters stated that the landlord 

purchases the heating equipment, while 

the tenant typically pays the heating 

bill; therefore, there is no financial 

incentive for the person buying the DHE 

in these situations to purchase efficient 

units. (Joint Advocates, No. 7 at p. 2) 

DOE tentatively agrees with the Joint 

Advocates that when a landlord 

purchases heating equipment and the 

tenant pays the heating bill, there is no 

financial incentive for the landlord to 

purchase a more-efficient product. 

PI NYU resubmitted comments 

originally submitted in response to an 

energy conservation program design RFI 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 28, 2017. 82 FR 56181. These 

comments discussed the addition of 

market-based compliance flexibilities 

such as credit trading, feebates, or intrafirm averaging to the Appliance 

Standards Program. 

In the present document in which 

DOE is determining whether standards 

for DHE need to be amended, EPCA 

requires DOE to consider the 

technological feasibility of amended 

standards, whether such standards 

would result in a significant 

conservation of energy, and whether 

such standards would be cost-effective. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)) As such, the standards 

evaluated for the purpose of this 

proposed determination are the current 

energy conservation standards and 

standards at more-stringent levels, not 

potential market-based compliance 

strategies. 

c. Product Labeling 

National Grid stated that many gas 

floor vented heaters were listed online 

without their associated AFUE value 

and recommended that AFUE should be 

indicated on all product specifications 

so that consumers can see the efficiency 

of the product compared to the range of 

products on the market. (National Grid, 

No. 9 at p. 1) DOE notes that all covered 

DHE must be certified to DOE under 10 

CFR 429.22, and the associated AFUE 

ratings are included in the CCMS 

database.24 Representations of AFUE are 

not required in product literature, but 

representations of efficiency other than 

the AFUE metric established by DOE are 

not allowed. (See 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(1)) 

d. Standard Level Recommendations 

In response to the February 2019 RFI, 

DOE received several comments opining 

on the appropriate course of action for 

DHE energy conservation standard 

levels. AHAM argued that the burdens 

outweigh the benefits of increasing 

energy conservation standards, while 

AHRI stated that the conclusion that 

amended standards for DHE are not 

economically justified remains true 

today. (AHAM, No. 5 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 

6 at p.1) 

NEEA stated it supports increasing 

energy conservation standards when 

there are technology options available, 

arguing that vented heaters are typically 

inefficient when compared to other 

heating options (i.e., non-DHE heating 

products). (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 1) NEEA 

encouraged DOE to increase energy 

conservation standards for gas wall 

vented heaters, and that organization 

specifically suggested a level of 80- 

percent AFUE for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters due to the high number 

of models available. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 

1) PI NYU stated that DOE should 

continue to select the maximum energy 

conservation standard level that is 

technologically feasible and cost-benefit 

justified. (PI NYU, No. 4 at p. 16) 

C. Proposed Determination 

After carefully considering the 

comments on the February 2019 RFI and 

the available data and information, DOE 

has tentatively determined that energy 

conservation standards for DHE do not 

need to be amended, for the reasons 

explained in the paragraphs 

immediately following. DOE will 

consider all comments received on this 

proposed determination prior to issuing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77037 

the next document in this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

1. Unvented Heaters 

As discussed in sections II.B.2 and 

III.B.1 of this document, the efficiency 

inherent with unvented electric heaters 

provides negligible opportunity for 

energy savings, because any heat loss of 

the product is transferred to the 

conditioned space and not wasted. DOE 

examined the market for unvented gas 

heaters and unvented oil heaters and 

found that most models on the market 

have instructions to turn the pilot light 

off and, thus, would not be required to 

measure the standing pilot light input 

rate. For these reasons, consistent with 

previous rulemakings in which it has 

addressed unvented heaters, DOE has 

tentatively determined that standards 

for unvented heaters are not needed. 

2. Vented Heaters 

For vented heaters, DOE analyzed 

each product class—gas wall fan type, 

gas wall gravity type, gas floor, and gas 

room—separately in the market and 

technology assessment (sections III.B.3.a 

and III.B.3.b of this document), the 

screening analysis (section III.B.3.c of 

this document), the engineering analysis 

(section III.B.3.d of this document), the 

LCC and PBP analysis (section III.B.3.f 

of this document), and the shipments 

analysis (section III.B.3.g of this 

document), and the Department 

evaluated all vented heaters together in 

the energy use analysis (section III.B.3.e 

of this document), the national energy 

savings analysis (section III.B.3.h of this 

document), and the manufacturer 

impact analysis (section III.B.3.i of this 

document) when making a 

determination of whether amended 

standards are justified under EPCA. 

a. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for vented heaters would be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(B)) For gas floor vented 

heaters, as discussed in section III.B.3.d 

of this document, the maximum 

available efficiency level on the market 

is at the baseline efficiency level (i.e., 

the current standard). Since there are no 

models available on the market above 

baseline and DOE is unaware of any 

prototype designs that have 

demonstrated higher efficiencies for gas 

floor vented heaters, DOE tentatively 

concludes that more-stringent standards 

for gas floor vented heaters are not 

technologically feasible. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

there are technology options that would 

improve the efficiency of gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, gas wall gravity 

type vented heaters, and gas room 

vented heaters. These technology 

options are being used in commercially 

available gas wall fan type vented 

heaters, gas wall gravity type vented 

heaters, and gas room vented heaters 

and, therefore, are technologically 

feasible. (See section III.B.3.b of this 

document for further information.) 

Hence, DOE has tentatively determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for gas wall fan type vented 

heaters, gas wall gravity type vented 

heaters, and gas room vented heaters are 

technologically feasible. 

b. Cost-Effectiveness 

As the next step in the agency’s 

analysis, EPCA requires DOE to then 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, gas wall gravity 

type vented heaters, and gas room 

vented heaters would be cost-effective 

through an evaluation of the savings in 

operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the covered 

product compared to any increase in the 

price of, or in the initial charges for, or 

maintenance expenses of the covered 

products which are likely to result from 

the amended standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6295(n)(2)(C), 

and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) As 

discussed in sections II.B.2.b and 

III.B.3.f of this document, DOE 

determined that the LCC and PBP 

analyses of TSL 3, the TSL immediately 

above the level adopted as a Federal 

standard (and which was proposed in 

the October 2009 NOPR and rejected in 

the April 2010 final rule), as evaluated 

in the April 2010 final rule, suggested 

that initial costs outweighed the 

consumer benefits. See also 81 FR 

71325, 71327 (Oct. 17, 2016). DOE has 

tentatively determined that the LCC and 

PBP analyses conducted for the April 

2010 final rule remain generally 

applicable. 

c. Significant Energy Savings 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, gas wall gravity 

type vented heaters, and gas room 

vented heaters would result in result in 

significant conservation of energy. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 

6295(n)(2)(A)) As explained in section 

II.B.5 of this document, DOE uses a twostep approach that considers both a 

quad threshold value (0.3 quads of site 

energy over a 30-year period) and a 

percentage threshold value (10 percent 

reduction in energy usage over a 30-year 

period) to ascertain whether a potential 

standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(B), which requires DOE to 

avoid setting a standard that ‘‘will not 

result in significant conservation of 

energy.’’ As discussed in section 

III.B.3.e of this document, the 

technology options for vented heaters 

have not changed significantly since the 

April 2010 final rule and October 2016 

final determination analyses were 

conducted. Therefore, DOE based its 

energy savings analysis on the estimates 

developed during the April 2010 final 

rule and October 2016 final 

determination. Based on its analysis, 

DOE estimated that for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters, gas wall gravity type 

vented heaters, and gas room vented 

heaters, potential site energy savings 

from more-stringent standards at the 

max-tech level would be 0.13 quads, 

which is less than quad threshold value 

of 0.3 quads. As the quad threshold 

value was not met at max-tech, DOE 

next considered the percentage 

threshold. DOE again referred to the 

analysis conducted for the April 2010 

final rule and estimated that the 

reduction in site energy use under an 

energy conservation standard at the 

max-tech level would be six percent, 

which is less than the percentage 

threshold of 10 percent. As both the 

quad and percentage thresholds are not 

met, DOE has tentatively determined 

that amended standards would not 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. This tentative conclusion, if 

confirmed after review of public 

comments, would be sufficient on its 

own under EPCA to support a 

determination that the energy 

conservation standards for DHE do not 

need to be amended. 

d. Further Considerations 

As previously discussed, DOE is 

required to publish either a notification 

of a determination that standards for 

vented heaters do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B)) 

If DOE publishes a NOPR including new 

proposed standards, the proposed 

standards must be designed to achieve 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency, which DOE determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(m)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)). 

In determining whether new proposed 

standards would be economically 

justified, DOE must determine whether 

the benefits of the standards exceed 

their burdens by, to the greatest extent 

practicable, considering, the seven 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77038 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

statutory criteria previously discussed. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) 

For gas wall fan type vented heaters, 

gas wall gravity type vented heaters, and 

gas room vented heaters, DOE 

considered the findings of the April 

2010 final rule and the October 2016 

final determination, in addition to 

comments received in response to the 

February 2019 RFI. As discussed in 

section III.B.3.g of this document, the 

number of vented heater shipments 

were projected to decline in the April 

2010 final rule, and comments received 

during the rulemaking that resulted in 

the October 2016 final determination 

indicated that shipments have indeed 

continued to decline since the previous 

analysis was conducted. Further, DOE 

stated in the April 2016 NOPD which 

preceded the October 2016 final 

determination that shipments were in 

fact lower than projected in the April 

2010 final rule, indicating that the 

decline has been faster than expected. 

81 FR 21276, 21281 (April 11, 2016). 

This supports the notion that the vented 

heater market is continuing to shrink, 

that product lines are mainly 

maintained as replacements for existing 

vented heaters units, and that new 

product lines generally are not being 

developed. In addition, the one new 

manufacturer of vented heaters that has 

entered the market since the October 

2016 final determination only produces 

two models, neither of which have 

AFUE values outside of the range 

offered by other manufacturers, or any 

other characteristics that make them 

unique from other products already on 

the market. As discussed in sections 

III.B.3.a and III.B.3.d of this document, 

DOE found that the available AFUE 

values have largely stayed the same or 

decreased, with more-efficient products 

being taken off the market or rerated to 

lower AFUE values. 

As discussed in section III.B.3.f of this 

document, an examination of how the 

inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis have 

changed since the April 2010 final rule 

indicates that the LCC and PBP results 

from the April 2010 final rule would be 

comparable today. As discussed in 

section III.B.3.i of this document, DOE 

did not receive any comments or data in 

response to the February 2019 RFI that 

suggested a change in the historical 

trends within this industry. 

In the April 2010 final rule, DOE 

rejected higher standards, finding that 

capital conversion costs would lead to 

a large reduction in INPV and that small 

businesses would be disproportionately 

impacted, which would outweigh any 

benefits from higher standard levels. 75 

FR 20112, 20217–20218 (April 16, 

2010). Upon reviewing the current 

market for vented heaters, DOE has 

tentatively determined that its prior 

determination regarding the impact on 

INPV remains valid (i.e., standard levels 

above the current Federal energy 

conservation standard would require 

manufacturers to make significant 

capital investments of the magnitude 

initially projected in the April 2010 

final rule). As shipments for vented 

heaters have continued to decrease, 

manufacturers would be required to 

make investments to update model lines 

and manufacturing facilities with fewer 

shipments over which to spread the 

cost. This would lead to even more 

difficulty in recovering their investment 

than was projected in the April 2010 

final rule. 

In addition, DOE has initially 

determined that its conclusions 

regarding small business impacts from 

the April 2010 final rule and the 

October 2016 final determination are 

still valid concerns (i.e., small 

businesses would be likely to reduce 

product offerings or leave the vented 

heater market entirely if the standard 

were to be set above the level adopted 

in that rulemaking). Four of the five 

identified manufacturers of gas wall fan 

type vented heaters, gas wall gravity 

type vented heaters, and gas room 

vented heaters are small businesses. 

e. Standby Mode and Off Mode 

DOE also considered whether to 

establish energy conservation standards 

for standby mode and off mode 

electrical energy use. Fossil fuel energy 

use in standby mode and off mode is 

already included in the AFUE metric, 

so, therefore, separate standards for 

standby mode and off mode fossil fuel 

energy consumption are not needed. 

Given that the technologies in vented 

heaters are largely unchanged from 

those in the April 2010 final rule and 

October 2016 final determination, 

electric standby mode and off mode 

energy use is still very small in 

comparison to fossil fuel energy, and, 

thus, presents a relatively small 

potential for energy savings. DOE has 

tentatively determined that any energy 

savings from establishing energy 

conservation standards for standby 

mode and off mode electrical energy 

use, even when considered with active 

mode, would not increase the energy 

savings to a level above the quad or 

percentage threshold values established 

in the Process Rule and described in 

section II.B.5 of this document. 

f. Summary 

For gas floor vented heaters, DOE 

tentatively concludes that morestringent standards for gas floor vented 

heaters are not technologically feasible. 

As such, DOE also tentatively concludes 

that there is no conservation of energy 

possible from including gas floor vented 

heaters. Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amended standards for 

gas floor vented heaters are not needed. 

For gas wall fan type vented heaters, 

gas wall gravity type vented heaters, and 

gas room vented heaters DOE has 

tentatively determined that amended 

standards would not result in significant 

conservation of energy. Further, the 

potential benefits from amended 

standards would be outweighed by 

burdens on manufacturers. As such, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

new proposed standards would not be 

economically justified. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively determined that 

amended standards for gas wall fan type 

vented heaters, gas wall gravity type 

heaters, and gas room vented heaters are 

not needed. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 

proposed determination does not 

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of 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) at OMB. 

B. Review Under Executive Orders 

13771 and 13777 

On January 30, 2017, the President 

issued E.O. 13771, ‘‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs.’’ 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). E.O. 

13771 stated the policy of the Executive 

Branch is to be prudent and financially 

responsible in the expenditure of funds, 

from both public and private sources. 

E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to 

manage the costs associated with the 

governmental imposition of private 

expenditures required to comply with 

Federal regulations. This notification of 

proposed determination is expected to 

be an E.O. 13771 ‘‘Other Action.’’ 

Additionally, on February 24, 2017, 

the President issued E.O. 13777, 

‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform 

Agenda.’’ 82 FR 12285 (March 1, 2017). 

E.O. 13777 required the head of each 

agency to designate an agency official as 

its Regulatory Reform Officer (RRO). 

Each RRO oversees the implementation 

of regulatory reform initiatives and 

policies to ensure that agencies 

effectively carry out regulatory reforms, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77039 

consistent with applicable law. Further, 

E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of 

a regulatory task force at each agency. 

The regulatory task force is required to 

make recommendations to the agency 

head regarding the repeal, replacement, 

or modification of existing regulations, 

consistent with applicable law. At a 

minimum, each regulatory reform task 

force must attempt to identify 

regulations that: 

(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job 

creation; 

(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or 

ineffective; 

(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits; 

(4) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with regulatory 

reform initiatives and policies; 

(5) Are inconsistent with the 

requirements of Information Quality 

Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to 

that Act, in particular those regulations 

that rely in whole or in part on data, 

information, or methods that are not 

publicly available or that are 

insufficiently transparent to meet the 

standard for reproducibility; or 

(6) Derive from or implement 

Executive Orders or other Presidential 

directives that have been subsequently 

rescinded or substantially modified. 

DOE initially concludes that this 

proposed determination is consistent 

with the directives set forth in these 

Executive Orders. As discussed in this 

document, DOE has initially determined 

that amended energy conservation 

standards for DHE products are not 

needed. Therefore, if finalized as 

proposed, this determination is 

expected to be an E.O. 13771 ‘‘Other 

Action.’’ 

C. 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 E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (http://energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is 

proposing not to amend standards for 

DHE, if adopted, the determination 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would not have a ‘‘significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities.’’ Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

D. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that amended 

energy conservation standards for DHE 

would be unneeded as they would 

either be technologically infeasible 

(unvented heaters and gas floor vented 

heaters), or would not result in 

significant conservation of energy (gas 

wall fan type vented heaters, gas wall 

gravity type vented heaters, and gas 

room vented heaters), would impose no 

new informational or recordkeeping 

requirements. Accordingly, OMB 

clearance is not required under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) and DOE’s NEPA implementing 

regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s 

regulations include a categorical 

exclusion for actions which are 

interpretations or rulings with respect to 

existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, 

subpart D, Appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

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 determination 

and has tentatively 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 

determination. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) As this 

proposed determination would not 

amend the standards for DHE, there is 

no impact on the policymaking 

discretion of the States. Therefore, no 

action is required by E.O. 13132. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 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. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77040 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

25 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report’’ (2007) (Available at: http://

energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0). 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed determination meets the 

relevant standards of E.O. 12988. 

H. 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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at: http://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_

97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

I. 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 determination 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. 

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

K. Review Under the 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 Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

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). DOE has 

reviewed this NOPD under the OMB 

and DOE guidelines and has concluded 

that it is consistent with applicable 

policies in those guidelines. 

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 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 OIRA at 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 promulgates or is expected 

to lead to promulgation of a final rule, 

and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866, or any 

successor Executive 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. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend the energy 

conservation standards for DHE, is not 

a significant regulatory action under 

E.O. 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 at OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

M. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.25 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. DOE has determined 

that the peer-reviewed analytical 

process continues to reflect current 

practice, and the Department followed 

that process for considering amended 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 77041 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present action. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. If you plan 

to attend, please notify Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Please note that foreign nationals 

participating in the webinar (or public 

meeting, if one is held) are subject to 

advance security screening procedures 

which require advance notice prior to 

attendance. If a foreign national wishes 

to participate, please inform DOE as 

soon as possible by contacting Ms. 

Regina Washington at (202) 586–1214 or 

by email: Regina.Washington@

ee.doe.gov so that the necessary 

procedures can be completed. 

Webinar registration information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: https://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.

aspx?productid=57&action=viewlive. 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedures for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. The request and advance 

copy of statements must be received at 

least one week before the webinar and 

may be emailed, hand-delivered, or sent 

by postal mail. DOE prefers to receive 

requests and advance copies via email. 

Please include a telephone number to 

enable DOE staff to make a follow-up 

contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

A DOE official will preside at the 

webinar and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

webinar 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. A transcript of the webinar 

will be included on DOE’s website: 

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/standards.

aspx?productid=57&action=viewlive. In 

addition, any person may buy a copy of 

each transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. Public comment and 

statements will be allowed prior to the 

close of the webinar. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this document. 

Submitting comments via http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

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 itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, 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 http://

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 http://

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 http://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 http://

www.regulations.gov provides after you 

have successfully uploaded your 

comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or postal mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email, hand delivery/courier, or 

postal mail also will be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. With this 

instruction followed, 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. If you 

submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

CD, if feasible, in which case it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10
77042 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 231 / Tuesday, December 1, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. 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). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on November 24, 

2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant 

Secretary for Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on November 

24, 2020. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26327 Filed 11–30–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Parts 801, 802 and 803 

RIN 3084–AB46 

Premerger Notification; Reporting and 

Waiting Period Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

is issuing this advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPRM’’) to 

gather information, related to seven 

topics, that will help to determine the 

path for future amendments to the 

premerger notification rules (‘‘the 

Rules’’) under the Hart-Scott-Rodino 

Antitrust Improvements Act (‘‘the Act’’ 

or ‘‘HSR’’). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper, by 

following the instructions in the 

Invitation to Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘16 CFR parts 801–803: 

Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules ANPRM, 

Project No. P110014’’ on your comment. 

File your comment online at https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Jones (202–326–3100), Assistant 

Director, Premerger Notification Office, 

Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade 

Commission, 400 7th Street SW, Room 

CC–5301, Washington, DC 20024. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before February 1, 2021. Write ‘‘16 CFR 

parts 801–803: Hart-Scott-Rodino Rules 

ANPRM, Project No. P110014’’ on your 

comment. Your comment—including 

your name and your state—will be 

placed on the public record of this 

proceeding, including, to the extent 

practicable, on the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Because of the public health 

emergency in response to the COVID–19 

outbreak and the agency’s heightened 

security screening, postal mail 

addressed to the Commission will be 

subject to delay. We strongly encourage 

you to submit your comment online 

through the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. To ensure the Commission 

considers your online comment, please 

follow the instructions on the webbased form. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘16 CFR parts 801–803: HartScott-Rodino Rules ANPRM, Project No. 

P110014’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610, (Annex J), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

please submit your paper comment to 

the Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website, 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include sensitive personal information, 

such as your or anyone else’s Social 

Security number; date of birth; driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number, or foreign 

country equivalent; passport number; 

financial account number; or credit or 

debit card number. You are also solely 

responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential,’’—as provided by Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS10