25228 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

1This part was originally titled Part B. It was 

redesignated Part A in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

2This part was originally titled Part C. It was 

redesignated Part A–1 in the United States Code for 

editorial reasons. 

unrepresentative of the basic models’ 

true energy consumption characteristics. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2010. 

lllllllllllllllllllll

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10813 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

[Docket Number: EERE–BT–2006–WAV– 

0140] 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Decision and 

Order Denying a Waiver to PB Heat, 

LLC From the Department of Energy 

Residential Furnace and Boiler Test 

Procedures 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Decision and Order. 

SUMMARY: This notice publishes DOE’s 

Decision and Order in Case No. WAV– 

0140, which denies a waiver to PB Heat, 

LLC (PB) from the existing DOE 

residential furnace and boiler test 

procedure. This Decision and Order 

pertains to PB’s PO–50, PO–60, PO–63, 

and PO–73 models of oil-fired boilers. 

DOE previously published the PB 

Petition for Waiver and solicited 

comments, data, and information 

regarding the petition, which requested 

permission to publish a Low Water 

Temperature Seasonal Efficiency 

(LWTSE) value, conducted under an 

alternative industry test procedure, in 

addition to the mandatory Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) value 

required under DOE’s energy 

conservation standards. PB’s petition 

suggested that testing and reporting of 

the AFUE value alone is not 

representative of its basic models’ true 

energy consumption characteristics. 

DOE denies PB’s Petition for Waiver for 

the reasons set forth below. Because a 

waiver is not appropriate, DOE cannot 

prescribe an alternative test procedure. 

However, the Decision and Order 

clarifies that it is permissible for a 

manufacturer to conduct LWTSE testing 

and to present such results in product 

literature. It is noted that the Energy 

Guide label used for certification and 

consumer information purposes can 

only present information generated 

under the DOE test procedure, as 

required under applicable Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) regulations. When 

making such supplemental statements 

in the product literature, manufacturers 

must continue to conduct, report, and 

fairly disclose the AFUE test results 

generated under the DOE test 

procedures, and to use those AFUE 

results when making representations as 

to the basic model’s energy efficiency. 

Supplemental statements regarding 

LWTSE must fairly disclose the results 

of such testing and may not mislead the 

consumer about the relevance of the 

required AFUE value. For example, DOE 

suggests any manufacturer that wishes 

to show the LWTSE values in addition 

to the AFUE value should make clear 

the differences between the two tests, 

including the different operating 

characteristics and conditions, for 

consumers. 

DATES: This Decision and Order is 

effective May 7, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. E-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 

General Counsel, GC–71, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. E-mail: 

Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For access to the docket to read this 

notice, the Petition for Waiver, 

background documents, or comments 

received, please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 for 

information regarding visiting the 

Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program. The Resource 

Room is accessible at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l), DOE 

gives notice of the issuance of its 

Decision and Order as set forth below. 

In this Decision and Order, DOE denies 

PB’s request for a waiver from the 

existing DOE residential furnace and 

boiler test procedure for its PO–50, PO– 

60, PO–63, and PO–73 models of oilfired boilers. DOE denies the waiver 

because: (1) The PB units can and do 

operate at the higher water temperatures 

specified in the DOE test procedure; (2) 

there is no indication that the existing 

test procedure generates inaccurate 

results at the specified temperatures; 

and (3) the PB units meet the AFUE 

level required under the energy 

conservation standard. Accordingly, 

DOE has determined that the applicable 

test procedure is representative of the 

energy consumption characteristics of 

the PB basic models at the specified 

conditions (i.e., water temperatures) and 

that the DOE test procedures for these 

residential products will allow PB to 

test and rate its above-referenced line of 

oil-fired boilers. 

DOE clarifies that it is permissible for 

a manufacturer to conduct LWTSE 

testing and present the results in 

product literature (other than 

supplementation of the certification 

label, which can only present 

information generated under the DOE 

test procedure, as required under 

applicable FTC regulations). When 

making such supplemental statements 

in product literature, manufacturers 

must continue to conduct, report, and 

fairly disclose the AFUE test results 

generated under the DOE test 

procedures (10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(viii)), 

and to use AFUE results when making 

representations as to the basic model’s 

energy efficiency (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(1)). 

Supplemental statements regarding 

LWTSE must fairly disclose the results 

of such testing and may not mislead the 

consumer about the relevance of the 

required AFUE value. For example, DOE 

suggests any manufacturer that wishes 

to show the LWTSE values in addition 

to the AFUE value should make clear 

the differences between the two tests, 

including the different operating 

characteristics and conditions, for 

consumers. 

Issued in Washington, DC, April 30, 2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

Decision and Order 

In the Matter of: PB Heat, LLC (PB) 

(Case No. WAV–0140). 

Authority 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, sets forth a variety of 

provisions concerning energy efficiency, 

including Part A 1 of Title III, which 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309) Similarly, Part A–1 2 of Title III of 

EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, provides 

for an energy efficiency program titled, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25229 

3The Review Draft is currently part of ASHRAE 

Standard 103–2007 as an informative appendix. 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2007 states, ‘‘This appendix 

is not part of the standard. It is merely informative 

and does not contain requirements necessary for 

conformance to the standard. It has not been 

processed according to the ANSI requirements for 

a standard and may contain material that has not 

been subject to public review or a consensus 

process. Unresolved objectors on informative 

material are not offered the right to appeal to 

ASHRAE or ANSI.’’ However, for ease of discussion, 

this document will continue to refer to ASHRAE 

Standard 103–2003, as specified in PB’s original 

petition. 

‘‘Energy Efficiency Program for Certain 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) 

In general, Part A of Title III also 

provides for test procedures, labeling, 

and energy conservation standards for a 

variety of covered consumer products, 

including residential furnaces and 

boilers, and it authorizes DOE to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. With respect to test 

procedures, the statute generally 

authorizes the Secretary of Energy (the 

Secretary) to prescribe test procedures 

that are reasonably designed to produce 

results which reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated annual 

operating costs, and that are not unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(3)) The statute further provides 

that no manufacturer, distributor, 

retailer, or private labeler may make any 

representation in writing (including on 

a label) or in any broadcast 

advertisement with respect to the energy 

use or efficiency (or water use) of a 

covered product to which a DOE test 

procedure is applicable, unless such 

product has been tested in accordance 

with such test procedure and such 

representation fairly discloses the 

results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(1)) 

In relevant part, EPCA requires that 

DOE prescribe standardized test 

procedures to measure the energy 

consumption of residential furnaces and 

boilers in terms of the AFUE metric. (42 

U.S.C. 6291(22)(A)) DOE adopted test 

procedures for residential furnaces and 

boilers which are codified at 10 CFR 

430.23(n) and at 10 CFR 430, subpart B, 

appendix N (‘‘Uniform Test Method For 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Furnaces and Boilers’’). The DOE test 

procedure incorporates by reference 

provisions of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

(ASHRAE) Standard 103–1993, ‘‘Method 

of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 

Furnaces and Boilers.’’ The test 

procedure prescribes a standardized 

method for measuring the energy 

consumption of various types of 

furnaces and boilers. Further, the test 

procedure measurements can be used in 

determining model-specific energy 

consumption information to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions. 

DOE’s regulations set forth under 10 

CFR 430.27 contain provisions that 

enable a person to seek a waiver from 

the test procedure requirements for a 

covered consumer product under the 

following circumstances. Any interested 

person may submit a petition for waiver 

upon the grounds that the basic model 

contains a design characteristic which 

either prevents testing of the basic 

model according to the prescribed test 

procedures, or the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 10 CFR 

430.27(a)(1). 

Furthermore, the regulations 

authorize the Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy (Assistant Secretary) to grant an 

Interim Waiver from test procedure 

requirements applicable to a particular 

basic model of consumer product, if it 

is determined that the applicant will 

experience economic hardship if the 

Application for Interim Waiver is 

denied, if it appears likely that the 

Petition for Waiver will be granted, and/ 

or the Assistant Secretary determines 

that it would be desirable for public 

policy reasons to grant immediate relief 

pending a determination on the Petition 

for Waiver. 10 CFR 430.27(g). An 

Interim Waiver will remain in effect for 

180 days or until DOE issues its 

determination on the Petition for 

Waiver, whichever occurs first. Further, 

an Interim Waiver may be extended for 

an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 

430.27(h). 

Assertions and Determinations 

PB submitted a Petition for Waiver 

from the temperature requirements 

listed in ASHRAE Standard 103–1993, 

with errata of October 24, 1996, which 

are incorporated into appendix N to 

subpart B of 10 CFR Part 430. The 

Petition for Waiver is based on the 

grounds that ‘‘ ‘the prescribed test 

procedures may evaluate the basic 

model in a manner so unrepresentative 

of its true energy consumption 

characteristics’ ’’ [as to provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data]. 

71 FR 46460, 46463 (August 14, 2006). 

In its petition, PB requested that in 

addition to the mandatory reporting of 

AFUE, it be allowed to also provide an 

LWTSE efficiency measure for its oilfired boilers based upon testing under 

the procedures in Appendix F of 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2003 (Public 

Review Draft).3 Id. at 46463–64. 

1. PB Petition for Waiver 

On March 27, 2006, PB filed a petition 

requesting that it be permitted to 

publish an LWTSE value in conjunction 

with the AFUE value that is the result 

of testing under 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix N (i.e., the test 

procedures for residential furnaces and 

boilers). At specific issue in the PB 

Petition are its PO–50, PO–60, PO–63 

and PO–73 models of oil-fired boilers. 

PB stated that the AFUE value from the 

prescribed test procedure may result in 

an evaluation of the basic model that is 

unrepresentative of its true energy 

consumption characteristics. PB did not 

request to rely on the LWTSE metric in 

lieu of the AFUE metric, but instead 

requested permission to publish both 

values for its residential boilers. DOE’s 

current test procedure does not provide 

for LWTSE testing, which represents a 

variant of AFUE under different 

operating conditions (i.e., lower return 

water temperatures). 

DOE understands that residential 

boilers are typically used either with 

baseboard convector or radiant floor 

heating systems that circulate water in 

a closed-loop fashion. Originating at the 

boiler, heated water is pumped to the 

convectors or radiant floor coils. As the 

water passes through the convectors or 

floor coils, heat is extracted, and the 

water is cooled. The heated water 

exiting the boiler is termed ‘‘supply 

water,’’ and the cooled water entering 

the boiler is termed, ‘‘return water.’’ For 

any given system, the return water 

temperature is directly related to the 

supply water temperature, which can be 

set at the boiler. Also, the return water 

temperature is a function of a house’s 

heating load and the effectiveness of 

either the convector or radiant floor coil 

system. Different heating systems and 

heating control systems may provide 

different water temperatures. For 

example, supply and return water 

temperatures are typically lower for a 

radiant floor coil system than a 

convector system. Nevertheless, to 

uniformly test and compare the AFUE of 

different residential boiler heating 

systems, the procedure in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix N specifies the 

use of standardized supply and return 

water temperatures for measuring the 

AFUE. As part of the petition, PB 

asserted that the specified temperatures 

do not suitably match the expected 

performance characteristics of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25230 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

subject boiler units, and consequently, 

the prescribed test procedures under 10 

CFR 430.23(n)(2) and in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix N, evaluate the 

subject boiler models in a manner that 

is unrepresentative of their true energy 

consumption characteristics in the field. 

PB stated that if a boiler is used with 

radiant floor heating systems, the return 

and supply water temperatures are far 

lower than those seen with baseboard 

convector systems. Similarly, PB stated 

that if a boiler is used with baseboard 

convector heating systems, in 

combination with outdoor reset 

controls, the supply water temperatures 

can be lower than that specified in the 

DOE test procedure for some fraction of 

the heating season. In its petition, PB 

also asserted that because the boilers in 

question are supplied with an outdoor 

reset control from the manufacturer, the 

boilers installed with either radiant 

floor heating systems or baseboard 

convector heating systems are capable of 

achieving condensing conditions, and 

increased efficiency and reduced energy 

use, during warmer periods of the 

heating season. 

In particular, PB asserted that its oilfired boiler models PO–50, PO–60, PO– 

63, and PO–73 achieve fully-condensing 

conditions at return water temperatures 

that are below the 120 degrees 

Fahrenheit (EF) return water 

temperature required under the test 

procedure at 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2) and 10 

CFR 430, subpart B, appendix N. 

According to PB, these oil-fired boilers 

are designed to operate in lowtemperature applications, and are 

supplied with an outdoor reset control 

that can allow the boiler to operate with 

lower return water temperatures for 

much of the heating season. 

In contrast, the DOE test procedure 

prescribed for boilers, under 10 CFR 

430.23(n) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix N, requires a return water 

temperature of 120 °F. PB asserted that 

the DOE test procedure will not reflect 

the efficiency that its boilers are capable 

of achieving due to the variations in the 

return water temperature. Instead, PB 

argued that the procedure described in 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2003, which 

uses a nominal return water temperature 

of 90 °F and a nominal supply water 

temperature of 110 °F, would better 

represent the seasonal efficiency of its 

boilers. PB believes that a waiver 

permitting publication of LWTSE would 

allow customers making purchasing 

decisions to ‘‘receive the greatest 

seasonal efficiency, save money on fuel 

costs and apply for the Energy Tax 

Credit that is part of the Federal Energy 

Bill of 2005.’’ 71 FR 46460, 46464 

(August 14, 2006). 

2. Factors To Consider in Granting or 

Evaluating a Petition 

DOE understands that PB is seeking a 

waiver of the test procedure 

requirements for return water 

temperature under 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2), 

because the petitioner asserts that the 

test procedure may evaluate its boiler 

models PO–50, PO–60, PO–63, and PO– 

73 in a manner so unrepresentative of 

their true energy consumption 

characteristics as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. Also, DOE 

understands that PB seeks to use an 

alternative test procedure (i.e., draft 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2003), which 

specifies lower supply and return water 

temperatures than required in DOE’s 

test procedure and a different seasonal 

efficiency metric. In addition, PB 

requested permission to publish an 

LWTSE in addition to AFUE for its 

residential boilers. 

In light of the above, DOE considered 

the potential impacts of testing 

condensing boilers under lower water 

temperatures, as suggested by PB. In its 

notice publishing PB’s Petition for 

Waiver, DOE expressed concern that the 

reliability of the approach suggested by 

PB in fact depends upon different 

seasonal and heating conditions that can 

vary from house to house, such as 

heating load profile that is a function of 

geographic location, temperature of the 

return water necessary for condensation, 

and the performance of a particular 

house’s baseboard convectors or radiant 

floor heating system. DOE also 

tentatively concluded that appendix F 

of the draft ASHRAE Standard 103– 

2003 (which specifically states it is 

intended for radiant floor heating 

systems) does not take into account how 

often a boiler will operate in the 

condensing mode with a baseboard 

convector system, even with an outdoor 

reset control. Thus, it may not 

accurately reflect ‘‘annualized’’ 

efficiency, which could cause confusion 

to consumers making a purchasing 

decision. Further, DOE understands 

from the PB petition that outdoor reset 

controls are ‘‘supplied’’ with its boilers. 

However, it is unclear whether such 

controls are an integral part of the boiler 

itself or a separate mechanism for 

installation in the field. If these control 

mechanisms are field-installed, DOE 

cannot be certain that a boiler would be 

equipped with the intended outdoor 

controls, which ultimately impact the 

annual energy use of the unit. It is 

DOE’s understanding that the outdoor 

temperature reset does not replace the 

safety mechanisms in place for 

residential boilers, which prevent them 

from operating at temperatures well 

above the DOE test procedure 

conditions. Finally, DOE questioned 

whether granting a waiver to PB could 

result in LTWSE ratings for its oil-fired 

boiler models PO–50, PO–60, PO–63, 

and PO–73 that do not enable uniform 

comparison with the ratings of other oilfired boilers. 71 FR 46460, 46461 

(August 14, 2006). 

Discussion of Comments 

DOE announced in the Federal 

Register the PB Petition for Waiver, the 

potential use of draft ASHRAE Standard 

103–2003, appendix F as an alternative 

test procedure for residential oil-fired 

furnaces and boilers, a calculation 

methodology for LWTSE, and a request 

for public comments. 71 FR 46460 

(August 14, 2006). 

In particular, DOE requested 

comments on the following questions: 

• Does the DOE test procedure 

provide results that are unrepresentative 

of the PB PO–50, PO–60, PO–63, and 

PO–73 models of oil-fired boilers’ 

energy consumption so as to provide 

materially inaccurate comparative data 

in all installations? 

• Were PB to be granted a waiver, 

would it lead to a proliferation of 

petitions for waiver for other oil-fired 

boilers? 

• Is the DOE test procedure 

appropriate for boilers used with 

baseboard convector heating systems? 

• Are there other metrics that can be 

used to assess the performance of lowwater-temperature boilers used with 

baseboard heating systems? 

• Is it appropriate for PB to use the 

proposed alternate test procedures for 

ratings and representations, and 

compliance with energy efficiency 

standards, building codes, and 

regulatory requirements? 

• Should the Department prescribe 

for manufacturers the LWTSE for lowwater-temperature boilers? 

Id. at 46462. 

In response, DOE received comments 

from seven interested parties. The 

comments appear in Docket No. EERE– 

BT–2006–WAV–0140. (See the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

in this notice for further information 

about access to the docket.) The 

following discussion identifies each 

interested party and summarizes its 

relevant comments. 

(1) Bradford White Corporation 

Bradford White Corporation (BWC) 

generally opposed the Petition for 

Waiver and commented that lowering 

the supply water temperature (140 °F) 

and the return water temperature (120 

°F) specified in ASHRAE Standard 103– 

1993 to 110 °F and 90 °F, respectively, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25231 

as PB requests, could increase the rated 

AFUE for all other boilers, especially 

condensing types. Further, BWC stated 

that the condensing products on today’s 

market, including those with outdoor 

temperature reset controls, are currently 

rated according to the existing test 

procedures. In response to the above 

questions, BWC opined that the current 

test procedure (10 CFR 430.23(n)(2)) 

‘‘does not provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data.’’ (BWC, 9 at p.1) 

Instead, BWC suggested that it is 

designed to select a single set of 

operating conditions that a boiler may 

see in service and measure efficiency at 

that point. This single operating test 

point allows consumers to compare data 

across available models and 

manufacturers. BWC asserted that the 

current test procedure is appropriate for 

boilers used with baseboard convector 

systems, and that creating other ratings 

would confuse the market and 

consumers by creating a matrix of boiler 

types, system types, operating 

temperatures, and so forth. (BWC, 9 at 

p.2) 

(2) National Oilheat Research Alliance 

National Oilheat Research Alliance 

(NORA) generally favored the PB 

Petition for Waiver and provided several 

assertions to substantiate its position. 

First, the oil heating industry has 

objected to the AFUE rating procedure 

because it fails to recognize the benefits 

that controls and electronics may have 

on overall system efficiency. Second, 

NORA stated that the current test 

procedure for AFUE does not serve the 

interests of consumers because it does 

not allow the measurement of an 

oilheating boiler when it is fully 

condensing. Third, NORA argued that 

the operating system controls, including 

use of an outside reset feature, can 

adjust boiler water temperatures to meet 

particular heating loads, thereby 

improving efficiency over a range of 

weather conditions. (NORA, 8 at p.1,2) 

(3) ECR International, Inc. 

ECR International, Inc. (ECRI) strongly 

urged DOE to deny the PB Petition for 

Waiver. In general, ECRI did not object 

to the supplemental use of LWTSE for 

marketing and informational purposes. 

However, ECRI asserted that the AFUE 

test results under DOE’s test conditions 

must be clearly distinguished from the 

optional LWTSE metrics to prevent 

consumer confusion. Notwithstanding 

the above, ECRI objected to the PB 

Petition for Waiver for the following 

reasons. According to ECRI, AFUE 

provides a common standard by which 

a consumer can make a logical 

comparison between boiler models and 

manufacturers. However, AFUE can 

only be used for relative comparisons 

between boilers and not absolute 

expectations of fuel consumption, 

because the actual efficiency of a boiler 

depends on many factors that vary from 

house to house and the current test 

procedure requires a steady state 

condition for return water temperature. 

As an example, ECRI states that the 

performance of a unit configured with 

an outdoor reset feature and indirect 

domestic hot water heating will be 

different from a system without such 

features and that return water 

temperatures vary in any one demand 

cycle. (ECR, 6 at p.1) 

In response to the above questions 

raised by DOE, ECRI offered the 

following comments. First, ECRI 

generally stated that AFUE and LWTSE 

metrics are not comparable. ECRI 

opined that the LWTSE metric would 

provide a higher efficiency value using 

the same test method due to differences 

in operating temperatures. Second, if 

DOE grants PB a waiver, ECRI will 

apply for and expect to receive a waiver 

for its products (both gas and oil types), 

and the result would be an increase of 

one to three percentage points of 

efficiency. Third, the current test 

procedure is appropriate for boilers 

used in baseboard applications, because 

AFUE enables comparisons between 

various boiler types. Fourth, the current 

use of AFUE allows for comparisons of 

low-water-temperature boilers. Fifth, it 

is not appropriate to use the LWTSE 

rating for compliance with energy 

efficiency standards, because reducing 

the water temperature would reduce the 

validity of the testing protocol. Overall, 

ECRI asserted that DOE should not 

substitute AFUE with LWTSE, and 

instead, ECRI recommended using 

LWTSE as a supplement to an AFUE 

rating to provide consumers with 

additional information on condition that 

the information is not confusing to 

consumers. (ECRI, 6 at p.2,3) 

(4) Burnham Hydronics 

In general, Burnham Hydronics (BH) 

agreed with PB that the current test 

procedure underestimates boiler 

efficiency in low-temperature 

applications, but it stated that all 

condensing boilers are disadvantaged in 

this way, so there should be no waiver. 

Further, BH opined that if a waiver were 

granted, there would not be a 

proliferation of waivers from the two 

manufacturers of oil-fired boilers, but 

there would be a proliferation of 

waivers from the more than twenty 

manufacturers of gas-fired boilers. BH 

stated its belief that the current test 

procedure overestimates the efficiency 

of boilers that are used in baseboard 

heating systems, and underestimates the 

efficiency of boilers used in condensing 

systems. BH asserted that there are no 

other metrics that can be used to 

measure the performance of low-watertemperature boilers used with baseboard 

heating systems, and that it is not 

appropriate to use a test procedure for 

LWTSE to meet established energy 

efficiency standards. As a minimum, BH 

reasoned that the current test procedure 

puts all condensing boiler 

manufacturers on a level playing field. 

Lastly, BH commented that DOE could 

prescribe LWTSE for low-watertemperature boilers, but only through 

the rulemaking process. (BH, 3 at p.1,2) 

(5) Brookhaven National Laboratory 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

(BNL) commented that the current 

AFUE test procedure for boilers 

specifies supply and return water 

temperatures at 140 °F and 120 °F, 

respectively. This return water 

temperature is specified both for 

condensing and non-condensing boilers. 

At this return water temperature, BNL 

stated that a gas-fired boiler can 

condense, but an oil-fired boiler will 

not. Furthermore, due to the lower 

water vapor content and lower latent 

heat loss, an oil-fired boiler will achieve 

higher efficiency than a gas-fired boiler 

under non-condensing conditions with 

the same excess air and flue gas 

temperature. (BNL, 10 at p. 1) 

BNL stated its understanding that 

actual boiler temperatures can vary 

considerably in the field, and that the 

temperature in a particular system can 

be affected by controls, including 

outdoor reset controls. According to 

BNL, studies have shown that outdoor 

reset controls can enable condensing 

oil-fired boilers to operate in a 

condensing mode for most of the 

heating season, even when used with 

baseboard radiators. (BNL, 10 at p. 1) 

In response to DOE’s request for 

comments on other metrics that can be 

considered for low-water-temperature 

boilers used with baseboard heating 

systems, BNL addressed controls that 

provide variable water temperature. 

BNL stated that the ASHRAE Special 

Products Committee 155 is developing a 

test method for commercial boilers that 

includes the effects of controls and 

variable water temperatures, which 

would result in an ‘‘Application 

Seasonal Efficiency’’ where controls, 

oversize features, and multiple boiler 

options can be selected to evaluate 

performance in a particular building. In 

addition, BNL commented that the 

method for ‘‘Determination of Boiler 

Performance for Low Water 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25232 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

Temperature Applications,’’ defined an 

appendix to the public review draft 

ASHRAE Standard 103, ‘‘Method of 

Testing Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 

Furnaces and Boilers,’’ was developed 

only for information and in particular 

for low temperature applications, such 

as radiant floor heating. BNL stated that 

this optional methodology uses supply 

and return water temperatures that are 

low enough to allow for condensing 

both in oil- and gas-fired boilers, but 

because this methodology uses a fixedtemperature water supply, it does not 

apply to a system with a variable 

temperature water supply. (BNL, 10 at 

p. 1, 2) 

(6) Quincy Hydronic Technology, Inc. 

Quincy Hydronic Technology, Inc. 

(QHT) strongly opposed granting a 

waiver to PB, arguing that it would be 

unfair to manufacturers that produce 

high-efficiency boilers which meet the 

required AFUE levels. Moreover, QHT 

objected to the AFUE rating system 

generally and asserted that it is not only 

flawed, but penalizes high-efficiency 

products. QHT cited examples of its 

B–10 boilers, wall-mounting gas boilers, 

and flexible cast iron boilers that 

essentially reduce fuel consumption and 

are more efficient because of innovative 

designs, but such benefits cannot be 

demonstrated through the AFUE test 

procedure. QHT indicated that, based 

on homeowner feedback, AFUE ratings 

fail consumers when making purchasing 

decisions. QHT opined that if PB were 

to receive a waiver, then DOE should 

expect requests for waivers from many 

manufacturers. QHT argued that DOE 

should revise the current test procedure 

so that it better reflects the performance 

boilers can achieve in actual field use 

and to make AFUE more meaningful. 

(QHT, 5 at p. 1, 2) 

(7) LAARS Heating Systems Company 

LAARS Heating Systems Company 

(LHSC) opposed granting a waiver to PB 

for its line of PO models of oil-fired 

boilers. According to LHSC, the change 

that PB requests for inlet and outlet 

temperatures from the levels currently 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 103– 

1993 (i.e., from 120 °F/140 °F to 90 °F/ 

110 °F) would increase the rated AFUE 

for these products, as it would for most 

other gas-fired and oil-fired boilers, and 

in particular condensing boilers. 

Further, if a new test procedure 

methodology is provided by waiver for 

only the PB products, then consumers 

would not be able to make reliable 

comparisons of AFUE ratings with the 

product lines of other manufacturers. 

Accordingly, LHSC argued that any 

change in the current test procedure 

should be industry-wide. (LHSC, 11 at 

p. 1) 

In response to DOE’s questions, LHSC 

commented that the current test 

procedure is not materially inaccurate, 

but it is designed for a single set of 

operating conditions and measures 

efficiency at that point, to enable 

consumers to compare data across 

available products. Also, LHSC 

reasoned that the test procedure is 

appropriate for boilers used with 

baseboard convector systems that are 

typically designed for 180 °F supply/ 

160 °F return temperatures, which 

would result in slightly different 

installed operating efficiencies than 

rated AFUE. LHSC observed that 

existing standards, codes, and other 

regulatory requirements rely on the 

current test procedures for AFUE, so 

providing a unique set of testing 

requirements through waiver would 

give PB an unfair competitive advantage 

in meeting such requirements. In 

addition, AFUE is the only metric for 

measuring boiler performance, 

regardless of boiler or type of heating 

system that uses gas-fired or oil-fired 

boilers, and introducing other ratings 

would cause confusion in the 

marketplace. LHSC opined that using 

the alternative test procedure for ratings 

and representations, as proposed by PB, 

would artificially raise the ratings for 

products made by PB over the boiler 

products of other manufacturers that 

test for AFUE under the current test 

procedures. Nevertheless, LHSC 

asserted that DOE should review and 

seek comments on potential changes to 

ASHRAE Standard 103 and consider 

adoption of appropriate amendments to 

the test procedure suitable for 

implementation on an industry-wide 

basis. (LHSC, 11 at p. 2) 

Response to Comments and DOE 

Determination 

Regarding the responses received to 

the above questions raised by DOE and 

other issues presented by commenters, 

DOE offers the following discussion. 

First, DOE asked whether the 

currently-prescribed test procedures 

may evaluate the PO-series basic model 

of oil-fired boiler manufactured by PB in 

a manner so unrepresentative of its true 

energy consumption characteristics as to 

provide materially inaccurate data. 

Interested parties commented that 

although the current test procedure 

measures efficiency at a single operating 

point under steady-state conditions, it 

nevertheless underestimates boiler 

efficiency in low-temperature 

applications, and in some cases 

penalizes high-efficiency designs. Two 

interested parties objected to the current 

test procedure because it does not 

consider the benefits that electronic 

controls (such as an outdoor 

temperature reset feature that can adjust 

boiler output temperature to meet a 

particular heating need) may have on 

overall system efficiency, nor does the 

current test procedure allow for 

measuring boiler efficiency when it is 

fully condensing. 

DOE generally divides products for 

standard-setting purposes into product 

classes by type of energy used, capacity, 

or other performance-related feature 

affecting energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) In the case of residential 

boilers, DOE has established product 

classes based on fuel type, including 

gas-fired and oil-fired units. 10 CFR 

430.32(e)(2). 

DOE understands that the current test 

procedure, at 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2) and 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, 

measures AFUE at steady-state 

operating conditions under certain 

supply and return water temperatures. 

The test procedure for all oil-fired 

boilers, regardless of manufacturer and 

across the entire range of efficiencies, 

was developed to provide a reasonable 

interpretation to the consumer of the 

annual fuel utilization efficiency. In 

order to do this, DOE requires testing at 

specific incoming and exiting water 

temperatures to provide a fair 

comparison for boilers offered for sale 

and to minimize testing burden on 

manufacturers. This enables consumers 

to make comparisons among various 

gas-fired or oil-fired boilers all operating 

under the same operating test condition. 

While DOE acknowledges that there 

are certain design features that could 

enhance efficiency which may not be 

captured by the current test procedure 

and statutory metric, one option would 

be for DOE to consider test procedure 

revisions in the future, which consider 

variations to the water temperatures 

experienced by different systems. PB 

did not provide any data supplementing 

their claims to show how the AFUE is 

impacted by varying water 

temperatures. In addition, PB also did 

not provide any data which would give 

DOE an indication of the proportion of 

time that the boiler spends operating at 

various water temperatures throughout 

the year. (Note: DOE realizes such data 

would be location and installation 

dependent.) Given that the statutory 

metric is AFUE, the current test 

procedure adequately measures that 

metric. 

When asked if there would be a 

proliferation of petitions for waiver if 

PB were granted a waiver, interested 

parties that commented on this issue 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 25233 

predicted that there would be some 

petitions for waiver from manufacturers 

of oil-fired boilers, and more so from 

manufacturers of gas-fired boilers. In 

light of the above comments, DOE 

understands that there would likely be 

many petitions for waiver from the 

prescribed test procedures under 10 

CFR 430.23(n)(2). However, such 

considerations do not affect whether 

PB’s Petition for Waiver should be 

granted on its merits. 

DOE believes that an alternative test 

procedure that is based on the 

informative appendix F of draft 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2003 could 

provide consumers with additional 

information about system efficiency 

under various operating conditions in 

the field, such as those used in radiant 

heating applications. However, as 

mentioned in comments by BNL, the 

procedure provided in appendix F does 

not address fully the more complicated 

issue of variable temperature controls. 

DOE asked about the appropriateness 

of its test procedure as it relates to 

boilers used with baseboard systems. 

Interested parties generally commented 

that the current test procedure is 

appropriate for boilers used with 

baseboard convector heating systems. It 

does not provide materially inaccurate 

comparative data, but is designed 

around a single set of operating 

conditions, thereby enabling consumers 

to compare data and make valid 

comparisons between products. DOE 

asked whether there are other metrics 

that can be used to assess the 

performance of low-water-temperature 

boilers used with baseboard heating 

systems. Interested parties generally 

commented that the current test 

procedure is appropriate, because it 

allows relative comparisons between 

low-temperature boilers, and that 

creating other ratings could cause 

confusion in the marketplace. DOE 

agrees that the current test procedure 

allows for an effective means for relative 

comparisons because the test establishes 

a single-point operating condition for all 

boilers regardless of how the boilers are 

used in actual field installations. For the 

same reason however, DOE is sensitive 

to the fact that the test procedure cannot 

capture the variance in performance of 

boilers which might be capable of 

different ratings when tested at other 

operating conditions (or tested with 

certain controls). By requiring testing 

under a specific set of operating 

conditions, DOE’s test procedure allows 

for reasonable representations to be 

made of the efficiency, irrespective of 

efficiency at other conditions or 

manufacturer. 

In response to DOE’s request for 

comments on whether it would be 

appropriate for PB to use an alternative 

test procedure for its ratings, 

representations, and compliance with 

energy efficiency standards, building 

codes, and other regulatory 

requirements, interested parties 

generally opined that it would not be 

appropriate to use a test procedure that 

measures LWTSE to meet established 

energy efficiency standards or 

regulations that are based on AFUE. 

Further, because such regulations rely 

on the current test procedures for AFUE, 

commenters argued that providing a 

unique set of testing requirements 

would give one manufacturer an unfair 

competitive advantage in meeting such 

requirements. Further, DOE understands 

that the variance in operating 

conditions, which impact the efficiency 

of the boiler, are not manufacturerspecific or model-specific. If DOE were 

to consider any changes, it would do so 

in a separate proceeding. DOE agrees 

that using LWTSE would be 

inappropriate because AFUE is the 

established metric, and, in addition, not 

deviating from the current AFUE metric 

and test procedure would maintain a 

method for consistent and equivalent 

comparisons of all boilers. 

As to whether DOE should prescribe 

a test procedure and establish levels for 

LWTSE, DOE did not receive specific 

comments on the technical merits of 

PB’s requested alternative test 

procedure as a proposed amendment to 

10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 

N—Uniform Test Method for Measuring 

the Energy Consumption of Furnaces 

and Boilers. 71 FR 46460, 46461 

(August 14, 2006). Instead, interested 

parties commented that if DOE 

prescribes a test procedure and standard 

for LWTSE, it should be through the 

rulemaking process, include the 

opportunity for public comments, and 

be applied on an industry-wide basis. 

Two interested parties generally 

addressed the test method defined in 

appendix F of the public review draft 

ASHRAE Standard 103, and one 

interested party said that the method of 

test was developed for low-watertemperature applications, such as 

radiant floor heating systems, but for 

information purposes only. (BNL, 10 at 

p.2) The other interested party asserted 

that DOE should seek comments on 

changes to ASHRAE Standard 103, and 

make appropriate changes to the DOE 

test procedures. (LHSC, 11 at p.2) DOE 

believes the most appropriate approach 

presently is to not propose an 

amendment prescribing the alternative 

test procedure and establishing standard 

levels based on LWTSE. However, DOE 

is sensitive to the potential issue of its 

current test procedure possibly 

underrating the efficiency of some 

boilers used in condensing modes/ 

systems. Accordingly, DOE is receptive 

to any comments and suggestions for 

workable solutions during any future 

DOE activity aimed at revising the test 

procedure. DOE believes that a full 

understanding of the issue and 

identification of the appropriate 

approaches to remedying issues can 

only be accomplished through a 

rulemaking process. 

DOE appreciates all of the comments 

it received, which have helped DOE 

reach a more fully informed decision 

regarding the PB Petition. DOE 

recognizes the concern raised by some 

commenters that the current DOE test 

procedure may not equally estimate the 

performance of condensing boilers and 

non-condensing boilers, and some 

commenters believe that the LWTSE test 

procedure would better characterize the 

efficiency of condensing boilers. DOE 

believes, however, that the LWTSE test 

procedure, which specifies lower fixed 

test temperatures only, may not be 

comprehensive enough to either capture 

or sufficiently represent the 

performance of condensing systems 

equipped with certain controls (i.e., 

temperature reset controls) that vary 

system operating temperatures. A 

revised test procedure that both 

accommodates lower water 

temperatures and captures the potential 

benefits of control strategies may be 

required to wholly and accurately 

characterize the spectrum of available 

boiler products and operating 

conditions. Even though DOE 

understands that there could be a 

variety of operating conditions 

experienced in the field, PB has not 

shown that the current AFUE test 

cannot be applied to these models. In 

addition, the test procedures are to 

provide reasonable efficiency ratings 

across the range of covered oil-fired 

boilers, and DOE was not provided 

details as to why DOE’s test procedure 

does not accurately capture the energy 

efficiency of the range of products 

currently sold. 

In light of the above, DOE has 

determined the following in response to 

the PB Petition for Waiver. Pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6291(22)(A), the ‘‘efficiency 

descriptor’’ for furnaces (of which 

boilers are one type) is annual fuel 

utilization efficiency. Because the 

efficiency metric for those products are 

set by statute, DOE does not have 

authority to substitute other metrics to 

rate the efficiency of residential 

furnaces and boilers. The DOE test 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
25234 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 88 / Friday, May 7, 2010 / Notices 

procedure prescribed at 10 CFR 

430.23(n) and contained in 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix N require 

AFUE testing of boilers with an inlet 

water temperature of 140 °F and an 

outlet water temperature of 120 °F. DOE 

could, however, consider modifications 

to the test conditions in the AFUE test 

as part of a separate rulemaking 

proceeding if DOE had data showing 

different test conditions were more 

appropriate. 

Even though PB’s Petition for Waiver 

requested permission to report 

information supplemental to AFUE 

rather than to only report different data 

expected to be more representative than 

AFUE, PB asserted that the DOE test 

procedure generates results that are so 

unrepresentative of the true energy 

consumption characteristics of its basic 

models as to provide materially 

inaccurate comparative data. 

After subsequent inquiry concerning 

PB’s assertion and in light of the above, 

DOE has determined that the PB boilers 

in question can and do operate at the 

higher water temperatures specified in 

the DOE test procedure. PB did not state 

that its units are incapable of operating 

at higher water temperatures; DOE 

understands the units are neither 

shipped with an add-on component nor 

equipped with an integral part that 

precludes operation at higher water 

temperatures. As stated earlier in this 

Decision and Order, system water 

temperatures are a function of many 

factors unrelated to the unit itself and 

can range significantly. In the absence of 

outdoor temperature reset, the incoming 

water temperatures can vary greatly 

depending on heating load, installation, 

and other factors. Thus, because the PB 

boilers can operate at the temperatures 

specified in the existing DOE test 

procedures, it is appropriate to test at 

those temperatures when rating the 

unit’s AFUE. Testing in this manner 

provides a steady-state test condition 

that generates results that can be 

compared across a range of products 

and manufacturers. PB has provided no 

evidence to suggest that the existing test 

procedure generates results that are 

either inaccurate or are not 

representative when testing is 

conducted at the higher temperatures 

specified in the test procedure. 

Therefore, a waiver is not appropriate, 

which in turn provides no basis for 

granting an alternative test procedure. 

The PB Petition for Waiver has raised 

a legitimate issue of whether the DOE 

test procedure would benefit from 

amendments to test and rate the 

performance of boilers at lower water 

input and output temperatures, as well 

as the efficiency effects of various 

controls for those products. PB has 

suggested that results generated at lower 

water temperature conditions would be 

more typical of the specified models’ 

performance, although it did not state 

that its products would be unable to be 

tested using DOE’s test procedure or to 

meet the energy conservation standard 

when testing is conducted at the higher 

water temperatures specified in the 

existing DOE test procedure for 

residential boilers. However, given their 

potential complexity, DOE believes that 

such issues should be addressed in the 

context of a rulemaking with the 

opportunity for public notice and 

comment. The results of such 

rulemaking would apply on an industrywide basis, thereby resulting in no 

advantage or disadvantage to any 

particular manufacturer. DOE may 

consider potential amendments to the 

test procedure regarding testing the 

energy efficiency of condensing boilers 

at lower water temperatures as part of a 

future rulemaking. 

In the meantime, DOE points out that 

PB and similarly situated manufacturers 

may make supplemental statements 

regarding the energy efficiency of their 

boilers (e.g., on marketing materials, 

Web sites), provided that they continue 

to disclose the AFUE result generated 

using the DOE test procedure. Such 

supplemental results must not mislead 

the consumer and must be clearly 

distinguished from the AFUE results. 

With that said, DOE notes that it has 

examined ASHRAE Standard 103–2003 

(Public Review Draft) and believes it to 

be generally adequate for the 

supplemental testing purposes 

envisioned by PB, provided that the 

significance of LWTSE results are 

explained and clearly differentiated 

from AFUE results, so as to prevent 

consumer confusion in the marketplace. 

Since LWTSE test conditions promote 

condensing operation, DOE would 

caution, in the interest of consumer 

safety, that units tested accordingly, and 

advertised with a LWTSE, be 

appropriately designed or equipped to 

contend with potential corrosion issues 

which are typically associated with 

condensates produced from lowtemperature flue gases. Accordingly, 

nothing currently prevents PB (or any 

other manufacturer) from reporting lowwater-temperature test results for the 

boilers in question, along with the 

required AFUE results in marketing or 

other informative materials for 

consumers. DOE suggests any 

manufacturer that wishes to show the 

LWTSE values in addition to the AFUE 

values clearly distinguish the 

differences between the two tests, 

including the different operating 

characteristics, for consumers. DOE 

notes, however, that such supplemental 

information could not be placed on the 

product’s Energy Guide label, because 

the FTC’s regulations limit such 

information to results generated under 

the DOE test procedure. 

Consultations With Other Agencies 

DOE consulted with the FTC staff 

concerning the PB Petition for Waiver. 

The FTC staff did not have any 

objections to the decision to deny a 

waiver to PB. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of all the 

materials submitted by PB and 

consultation with the FTC staff, for the 

reasons above, it is ordered that: 

(1) The ‘‘Petition for Waiver’’ filed by 

PB Heat, LLC (PB) (Case No. WAV– 

0140) is hereby denied for the reasons 

discussed above; and 

(2) PB shall be required to test or rate 

the AFUE of its residential PO–50, PO– 

60, PO–63, and PO–73 oil-fired boilers 

on the basis of the current test 

procedure contained in 10 CFR 

430.23(n) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, appendix N. 

PB may conduct LWTSE testing and 

report the results in product literature 

(other than supplementation of the 

certification label), provided that the 

AFUE test results generated under the 

DOE test procedure continue to be 

disclosed and that the LWTSE results 

provide reasonable, clear, and 

distinguishable representations of those 

results to the consumer. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 

2010. 

Cathy Zoi, 

Assistant Secretary, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–10815 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. ER10–1089–000] 

EquiPower Resources Management, 

LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 

Market-Based Rate Filing Includes 

Request for Blanket Section 204 

Authorization 

April 29, 2010. 

This is a supplemental notice in the 

above-referenced proceeding of 

EquiPower Resources Management, 

LLC’s application for market-based rate 

authority, with an accompanying rate 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES