10726 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. If 

this instruction is followed, persons 

viewing comments will see only first 

and last names, organization names, 

correspondence containing comments, 

and any documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Provide documents that are not secured, 

that are written in English, and that are 

free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11(e), (f), any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from mandatory public 

disclosure should submit via email two 

well-marked copies: One copy of the 

document marked ‘‘confidential’’ 

including all the information believed to 

be confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of a 

webinar and availability of preliminary 

technical support document. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 7, 2022, 

by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

pursuant to delegated authority from the 

Secretary of Energy. That document 

with the original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 17, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03850 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041] 

RIN 1904–AE57 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Commercial Warm Air 

Furnaces 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend the 

test procedures for commercial warm air 

furnaces (‘‘CWAFs’’) to incorporate the 

latest versions of the industry standards 

that are currently incorporated by 

reference. DOE also proposes to 

establish a new metric, Thermal 

Efficiency Two (‘‘TE2’’), and 

corresponding test procedure. Use of the 

newly proposed test procedure would 

become mandatory at such time as 

compliance with amended energy 

conservation standards based on TE2 is 

required, should DOE adopt such 

standards. DOE also proposes additional 

specifications for CWAFs with multiple 

vent hoods or small-diameter vent 

hoods. DOE is seeking comment from 

interested parties on the proposal. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this proposal 

no later than April 26, 2022. See section 

V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. 

DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, 

March 29, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 

p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. If no 

participants register for the webinar, it 

will be cancelled. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10727 

number EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to Furnaces2019TP0041@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041 in the subject 

line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (‘‘COVID– 

19’’) pandemic. DOE is currently 

suspending receipt of public comments 

via postal mail and hand delivery/ 

courier. If a commenter finds that this 

change poses an undue hardship, please 

contact Appliance Standards Program 

staff at (202) 586–1445 to discuss the 

need for alternative arrangements. Once 

the COVID–19 pandemic health 

emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 

resuming all of its regular options for 

public comment submission, including 

postal mail and hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=EERE-2019-BT-TP-0041- 

0001. The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section V for 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ms. Julia Hegarty, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (240) 567–6737. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

Amelia.Whiting@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in a public meeting (if one is held), 

contact the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE 

proposes to incorporate by reference the 

following industry standards into 10 

CFR part 431: 

American National Standards 

Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) Z21.47–2021, ‘‘Gasfired Central Furnaces’’; 

ANSI/The American Scociety of 

Mechanical Engineers (‘‘ASME’’) PTC 

19.3–1974 (R2004), ‘‘Part 3: 

Temperature Measurement, Instruments 

and Apparatus’’; 

ANSI/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 103– 

2017, ‘‘Method of Testing for Annual 

Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 

Residential Central Furnaces and 

Boilers’’; 

Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004) and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017, can be 

obtained from American National 

Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 

642–4900, or online at: 

webstore.ansi.org. 

Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) 

standard UL 727–2018 ‘‘Standard for 

Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces’’; 

Copies of UL 727–2018 can be 

obtained from Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW, Lake Rd., 

Camas, WA 98607–8542, (360) 817– 

5500 or online at: 

standardscatalog.ul.com. 

ANSI/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) 1500– 

2015 ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Space Heating Boilers’’; 

Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be 

obtained from Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 

2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, 

VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or online at: 

ahrinet.org. 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 

‘‘Standard Specification for 

Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf) 

Tables for Standardized 

Thermocouples’’; 

ASTM D240–09 ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Heat of Combustion of 

Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 

Calorimeter’’; 

ASTM D396–14a ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Fuel Oils’’; 

ASTM D4809–09a ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Heat of Combustion of 

Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 

Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’; 

ASTM D5291–10 ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Instrumental Determination 

of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in 

Petroleum Products and Lubricants’’; 

Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M– 

17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–14a, 

ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291– 

10, and can be obtained from ASTM, 

International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, 

P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 

19428, (877) 909–2786 or by going 

online at: www.astm.org. 

National Fire Protection Association 

(‘‘NFPA’’) 97–2003 ‘‘Standard Glossary 

of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, 

and Heat-Producing Appliances’’. 

Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be 

obtained from National Fire Protection 

Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, MA 02169–7471, (617) 770– 

3000 or by going online at: 

www.nfpa.org. 

For a further discussion of these 

standards, see section IV.M of this 

document. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope of Applicability 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

1. UL 727–2006 

2. HI BTS–2000 

3. ANSI Z21.47 

4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103 

C. ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’ Metric 

1. Jacket Loss 

2. Part-Load Performance 

D. Electrical Energy Consumption 

E. Other Test Procedure Updates and 

Clarifications 

1. Flue Temperature Measurement in 

Models With Multiple Vent Hoods 

2. Flue Temperature Measurement in 

Models With Vent Space Limitations 

3. Input Rate Tolerance 

4. Flue Loss Determination 

F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, 

and Other Topics 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

2. Harmonization With Industry Standards 

G. Compliance Date 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

1. Description of Why Action Is Being 

Considered 

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10728 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Infrastructure 

Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117–58 (Nov. 

15, 2021). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance 

Requirements 

5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With 

Other Rules and Regulations 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Description of Materials Incorporated 

by Reference 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

D. Participation in the Webinar 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

CWAFs are included in the list of 

‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is 

authorized to establish and amend 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) DOE’s 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures for CWAFs are currently 

prescribed at subpart D of part 431 of 

title 10 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’). The following 

sections discuss DOE’s authority to 

establish test procedures for CWAFs and 

relevant background information 

regarding DOE’s consideration of test 

procedures for this equipment. 

A. Authority 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes 

DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 

a number of consumer products and 

certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, 

added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, 

section 441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

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

6311–6317) This equipment includes 

CWAFs, the subject of this document. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

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

Federal energy conservation standards, 

and (4) certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying 

to DOE that their equipment complies 

with the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

Federal energy efficiency 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede State laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

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

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, in accordance with the 

procedures and other provisions of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D); 42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered equipment. 

EPCA requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section must be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use or estimated 

annual operating cost of a given type of 

covered equipment during a 

representative average use cycle and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

EPCA requires that the test procedure 

for CWAFs be those generally accepted 

industry testing procedures developed 

or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) or by the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such 

industry test procedure is amended, 

DOE must amend its test procedure to 

be consistent with the amended 

industry test procedure, unless DOE 

determines, by rule published in the 

Federal Register and supported by clear 

and convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden, in which case DOE may 

establish an amended test procedure 

that does satisfy those statutory 

provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and 

(C)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CWAF, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

If the Secretary determines that a test 

procedure amendment is warranted, the 

Secretary must publish proposed test 

procedures in the Federal Register and 

afford interested persons an opportunity 

(of not less than 45 days’ duration) to 

present oral and written data, views, 

and arguments on the proposed test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE 

determines that test procedure revisions 

are not appropriate, DOE must publish 

its determination not to amend the test 

procedures. DOE is publishing this 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘NOPR’’) in satisfaction of the 7-year 

review requirement specified in EPCA. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) 

B. Background 

DOE’s current test procedure for 

CWAFs is codified at 10 CFR 431.76, 

‘‘Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial warm air furnaces.’’ The 

currently applicable test procedure 

incorporates by reference two industry 

standards for testing gas-fired CWAFs: 

American National Standards Institute 

(‘‘ANSI’’) Z21.47–2012, ‘‘Standard for 

Gas-fired Central Furnaces’’ (‘‘ANSI 

Z21.47–2012’’), which is used for all 

types of gas-fired CWAFs; and ANSI/ 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 103– 

2007, ‘‘Method of Testing for Annual 

Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 

Residential Central Furnaces and 

Boilers’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007’’), 

which is specifically used for testing 

condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 10 CFR 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10729 

3 DOE determined that UL 727–1994 did not 

provide a procedure for calculating the percent flue 

loss of the furnace, which is necessary in 

calculating the thermal efficiency, and therefore 

incorporated by reference provisions from HI BTS– 

2000 to calculate the flue loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 

69 FR 61916, 61917, 61940 (Oct. 21, 2004). 

4UL 727–1994 is also incorporated by reference 

in 10 CFR 431.75, but is no longer referenced in the 

test method specified in 10 CFR 431.76, which 

references only UL 727–2006. 

5The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket of DOE’s 

rulemaking to develop test procedures for CWAFs. 

(Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–TP–0041, which is 

maintained at www.regulations.gov). The references 

are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, 

comment docket ID number, page of that 

document). 

431.76 (c)(1), (d)(2), (e)(1), and (f)(1);10 

CFR 431.75(b)(1) and (c)(1). The current 

test procedure also incorporates by 

reference two industry standards for 

testing oil-fired CWAFs: Hydronics 

Institute Division of AHRI (‘‘HI’’) BTS– 

2000 Rev 06.07, ‘‘Method to Determine 

Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating 

Boilers’’ (‘‘HI BTS–2000’’) 3 and 

Underwriters Laboratories (‘‘UL’’) UL 

727–2006, ‘‘Standard for Safety OilFired Central Furnaces’’ (‘‘UL 727– 

2006’’).4 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2), (d)(1), and 

(e)(2); 10 CFR 471.75(d)(1) and (e)(2). 

DOE most recently amended the test 

procedure for CWAFs in a final rule 

published on July 17, 2015, which 

updated the test procedure for gas-fired 

CWAFs to incorporate by reference the 

latest versions of the industry standards 

available at the time (i.e., ANSI Z21.47– 

2012 and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007). 80 

FR 42614 (‘‘July 2015 final rule’’). At the 

time of the July 2015 final rule, UL 727– 

2006 and HI BTS–2000 were still the 

most recent versions of those industry 

standards. 

On May 5, 2020, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) 

soliciting public comments, data, and 

information on aspects of the existing 

DOE test procedure for CWAFs, 

including whether there are any issues 

with the current test procedure and 

whether it is in need of updates or 

revisions. 85 FR 26626 (‘‘May 2020 

RFI’’). 

DOE received comments in response 

to the May 2020 RFI from the interested 

parties listed in Table I.1. 

TABLE I.1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2020 RFI 

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project .............................................................................. ASAP .............................. Efficiency Organization. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance .................................................................................... NEEA .............................. Efficiency Organization. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the ‘‘California 

Investor-Owned Utilities’’).

CA IOUs ......................... Utility Organization. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ........................................................... AHRI ............................... Trade Association. 

American Public Gas Association .......................................................................................... APGA ............................. Trade Association. 

Carrier Corporation ................................................................................................................ Carrier ............................ Manufacturer. 

Trane Technologies ............................................................................................................... Trane .............................. Manufacturer. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.5

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR 

stages for a test procedure rulemaking. 

See 86 FR 70892 (Dec. 13, 2021) 

(effective January 12, 2022). Section 8(b) 

of appendix A states if DOE determines 

that it is appropriate to continue the test 

procedure rulemaking after the early 

assessment process, it will provide 

further opportunities for early public 

input through Federal Register 

documents, including notices of data 

availability and/or RFIs. DOE is opting 

to deviate from this provision due to the 

substantial feedback and information 

supplied by commenters in response to 

the May 2020 RFI. 

As discussed in section I.B of this 

NOPR, the May 2020 RFI requested 

submission of such comments, data, and 

information pertinent to test procedures 

for CWAFs. In response to the May 2020 

RFI, stakeholders provided substantial 

comments and information, which DOE 

has found sufficient to identify the need 

to modify the test procedures for 

CWAFs. Section III of this NOPR 

discusses in detail the comments 

received and how early stakeholder 

feedback has been considered in 

forming DOE’s proposals to amend the 

CWAF test procedure. 

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

update its test procedures for CWAFs as 

follows: 

(1) Reorganize the setup and testing 

provisions in 10 CFR 431.76 related to 

the determination of thermal efficiency 

into the newly established 10 CFR part 

431, subpart D, appendix A (‘‘appendix 

A’’); 

(2) Incorporate by reference the most 

recent versions of the currently 

referenced industry standards: 

• UL 727–2018 (previously UL 727– 

2006) for testing oil-fired CWAFs; 

• AHRI 1500–2015 (previously HI 

BTS–2000) for performing fuel oil 

analysis and for calculating flue loss of 

oil-fired CWAFs; 

• ANSI Z21.47–2021 (previously 

ANSI Z21.47–2012) for testing gas-fired 

CWAFs; and 

• ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 

(previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007) 

for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs; 

(3) Incorporate by reference the 

standards referenced in UL 727–2018 

(i.e., NFPA 97–2003), AHRI 1500–2015 

(i.e., ASTM D396–14a, ASTM D240–09, 

ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291– 

10), and ANSI Z21.47–2021 (i.e., ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)) that are 

necessary for performing the DOE test 

procedure; 

(4) Clarify how to test units with 

multiple vent hoods, and units with 

vent hoods that are 2 inches or smaller 

in diameter; and 

(5) Establish a new test procedure at 

10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B 

(‘‘appendix B’’), which would generally 

require testing as in appendix A, but 

which would establish a new metric, 

‘‘TE2.’’ The new TE2 metric would 

account for jacket losses and part-load 

operation in addition to accounting for 

flue losses. If adopted, manufacturers 

could use proposed new appendix B to 

make voluntary representations of TE2; 

this proposed test procedure would 

become mandatory at such time as 

compliance is required with amended 

energy conservation standards based on 

TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10730 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6At the time of the May 2020 RFI publication, 

ANSI Z21.47–2016 was the most up-to-date version 

of ANSI Z21.47. Since then, ANSI Z21.47–2021 was 

published. 

DOE’s proposed actions are 

summarized in Table II.1 compared to 

the current test procedure as well as the 

reason for the proposed change. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE

Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedures Applicable test 

procedure Attribution 

References UL 727–2006 for testing oilfired CWAFs.Incorporate by reference UL 727–2018 for testing oilfired CWAFs, and the standards referenced in UL 

727–2018 that are necessary in performing the 

DOE test procedure (i.e., NFPA 97–2003).

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Align with industry standard update. 

References HI BTS–2000 for performing 

fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue 

loss of oil-fired CWAFs.

Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500–2015 for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue 

loss of oil-fired CWAFs and the standards referenced in AHRI 1500–2015 that are necessary in 

performing the DOE test procedure (i.e., ASTM 

D396–14a, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D4809–09a, 

and ASTM D5291–10).

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Align with industry standard update. 

References ANSI Z21.47–2012 for testing gas-fired CWAFs.Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47–2021 for testing gas-fired CWAFs, and the standards referenced in ANSI Z21.47–2021 that are necessary 

in performing the DOE test procedure (i.e., ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)).

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Align with industry standard update. 

References ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007 

for testing condensing gas-fired 

CWAFs.

Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 

for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs.

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Align with industry standard update. 

Does not specify how to test units with 

multiple vent hoods.

Adds specifications for units with multiple vent hoods. 

Measurements made in each vent hood shall be 

averaged or adjusted using a weighted average, 

depending on the flue hood face area.

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Additional specification to 

improve consistency 

and repeatability in testing. 

Does not specify how to test units with 

vent hoods that are too small to fit 

nine thermocouples.

Adds specifications to address units with small-diameter vent hoods. Units with vent hoods that are 

2 inches or smaller in diameter may optionally use 

5 thermocouples.

Appendix A and 

appendix B.

Additional specification to 

improve consistency 

and repeatability in testing. 

Efficiency metric (TE) only accounts for 

flue losses and does not account for 

jacket losses or part-load operation.

Establishes a new metric (TE2) that accounts for flue 

losses, jacket losses, and part-load operation.

Appendix B ....... Improve representativeness. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the proposed amendments for the test 

procedure at appendix A described in 

section III of this document would not 

alter the measured efficiency of CWAFs, 

that the proposed test procedures would 

not be unduly burdensome to conduct, 

and that the proposed test procedures 

more accurately produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of CWAFs 

during a representative average use 

cycle. 

The additional proposed amendments 

for the newly proposed appendix B 

would alter the reported efficiency of 

CWAFs, as discussed in the relevant 

section of this document. However, as 

proposed, testing in accordance with 

these specific proposed changes would 

not be required until such time as 

compliance is required with any 

amended energy conservation standards 

based on appendix B. 

Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions 

are discussed in detail in section III of 

this document. 

III. Discussion 

In the following sections, DOE 

describes the proposed amendments to 

the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE 

seeks input from the public to assist 

with its consideration of the proposed 

amendments presented in this 

document. In addition, DOE welcomes 

comments on other relevant issues that 

may not specifically be identified in this 

document. 

A. Scope of Applicability 

This rulemaking applies to CWAFs. 

EPCA defines ‘‘warm air furnace’’ as a 

self-contained oil-fired or gas-fired 

furnace designed to supply heated air 

through ducts to spaces that require it 

and includes combination warm air 

furnace/electric air conditioning units, 

but does not include unit heaters and 

duct furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A)) 

DOE codified the statutory definition of 

‘‘warm air furnace’’ at 10 CFR 431.72. 

DOE defines a CWAF as a warm air 

furnace that is industrial equipment, 

and that has a capacity (rated maximum 

input) of 225,000 British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’) per hour or more. 10 CFR 

431.72. 

DOE did not receive any comments in 

response to the May 2020 RFI related to 

the scope of the CWAF test procedure 

or relevant definitions for CWAFs. DOE 

is not proposing any changes to the 

scope of equipment covered by its 

CWAF test procedures, or to the 

relevant definitions. 

B. Updates to Industry Standards 

As discussed, DOE currently 

incorporates by reference in 10 CFR part 

431, subpart D, the following industry 

test procedures: UL 727–2006, HI–BTS 

2000, ANSI Z21.47–2012, and ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2007. Updates 

of each of these test standards have been 

published since they were incorporated 

into the current test procedure. These 

updated test standards are UL 727–2018 

(update to UL 727–2006), AHRI 1500– 

2015 (update to HI–BTS 2000), ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 6 (update to ANSI Z21.47– 

2016), and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

103–2017 (update to ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 103–2007). 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted 

several differences between the industry 

standards currently incorporated by 

reference and the updated industry 

standards and sought comment on these 

changes. 85 FR 26626, 26629–26631. 

Each change in the updated versions of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10731 

each standard and stakeholder 

comments in response to the May 2020 

RFI are discussed in the following 

sections. DOE did not identify any 

substantive differences between the 

currently referenced industry standards 

and their updated versions that would 

pertain to the DOE test procedure for 

CWAFs, other than those discussed in 

the following sections. In response to 

the updates to the relevant industry 

standards, DOE is proposing to amend 

the Federal test procedure for CWAFs to 

incorporate by reference in 10 CFR part 

431, subpart D, the following updated 

industry standards: UL 727–2018, AHRI 

1500–2015, ANSI Z21.47–2021, and 

ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017. 

As discussed, the DOE test procedure 

for CWAFs is specified in 10 CFR 

431.76. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing 

to establish appendix A to subpart D of 

10 CFR part 431. DOE is reorganizing 

the CWAF setup and testing provisions 

currently proscribed in 10 CFR 431.76 

into appendix A to clarify the test 

provisions that are necessary for 

determining thermal efficiency. DOE is 

reorganizing 10 CFR 431.76 in the way 

because, as discussed in section III.C of 

this document, DOE is also establishing 

appendix B for determining the 

proposed thermal efficiency two metric. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

creating separate appendixes for the 

determination of the two different 

metrics would help clarify which 

appendix corresponds to which metric 

(i.e., appendix A is for thermal 

efficiency, while appendix B is for 

thermal efficiency two). Therefore, the 

establishment of appendix A is editorial 

and for reorganization purposes, and 

appendix A does not deviate from the 

current DOE test procedure unless 

specifically discussed in the sections 

below and in section III.E of this 

document. 

1. UL 727–2006 

The CWAF test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.76 requires use of those procedures 

contained in UL 727–2006 that are 

relevant to the steady-state efficiency 

measurement (i.e., UL 727–2006 

sections 1 through 3; 37 through 42 

(except for sections 40.4 and 40.6.2 

through 40.6.7); 43.2; and 44 through 

46). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

identified two updates in UL 727–2018 

relating to the scope and to 

thermocouple tolerance. 85 FR 26626, 

26629–26630. In addition, since the 

publication of the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

has identified one additional update in 

UL 727–2018 related to the definitions 

incorporated in section 3 of UL 727– 

2018. These updates, the comments 

received from stakeholders regarding 

these updates, and DOE’s proposal for 

each update are discussed in detail in 

the following sections. As previously 

mentioned in section III.B of this 

document, DOE is proposing to amend 

the DOE test procedure to incorporate 

by reference UL 727–2018. 

a. Scope of UL 727 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

the language in section 1 of the UL 727– 

2018 test standard regarding the scope 

of the standard has been changed from 

that in UL 727–2006. 85 FR 26626, 

26630. Section 1.3 in UL 727–2006 

references the NFPA ‘‘Standard for 

Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment,’’ 

NFPA 31, and codes such as the 

‘‘Building Officials Code Administrators 

International National Mechanical 

Code,’’ the ‘‘State Building Code 

Council Standard Mechanical Code,’’ 

and the ‘‘International Association of 

Plumbing and Mechanical Officials 

Uniform Mechanical Code’’ for 

requirements for the installation and use 

of oil-burning equipment. In contrast, 

Section 1.3 of UL 727–2018 references 

the NFPA ‘‘Standard for Installation of 

Oil-Burning Equipment,’’ NFPA 31, the 

‘‘International Mechanical Code,’’ and 

the ‘‘Uniform Mechanical Code’’ 

regarding installation and use of oilburning equipment. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE explained 

that DOE defines the scope for the 

testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), 

and that the scope of applicability of the 

DOE test procedure is independent from 

the scope defined by UL–727–2006. 85 

FR 26626, 26630. Although DOE 

references the scope of UL 727–2006 in 

its test provisions at 10 CFR 

431.76(c)(2), only the procedures within 

UL 727–2006 that are pertinent to the 

measurement of the steady-state 

efficiency are included in the DOE test 

procedure. 10 CFR 431.76(b). Therefore, 

any provisions within the scope of UL 

727–2006 that do not relate to the 

measurement of the steady-state 

efficiency do not apply to the DOE test 

procedure. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought 

comment on whether there is a need to 

identify more specifically the provisions 

of UL 727–2006 that apply to the DOE 

test procedure. Id. In response, AHRI 

recommended the adoption of the most 

current edition of UL 727 published in 

2018 and stated that it does not believe 

there is a need to identify provisions 

from the 2006 edition in the DOE test 

procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

the scope section of UL 727–2018 is 

inapplicable to the DOE test procedure 

because the scope of the DOE test 

procedure is defined separately in 10 

CFR 431.76(a), and only the provisions 

in UL 727–2018 that relate to the 

measurement of steady-state efficiency 

apply to the DOE test procedure. While 

DOE is proposing to incorporate by 

reference UL 727–2018 in its entirety, 

DOE is proposing to explicitly identify 

the provisions of UL 727–2018 that are 

applicable to the DOE test procedure for 

CWAF, which would not include the 

scope section of that industry standard, 

since the scope of the DOE test 

procedure is defined separately in 10 

CFR 431.76(a). 

b. Thermocouple Tolerance 

The DOE test procedure currently 

incorporates Section 40 of UL 727–2006 

for the test set-up for oil-fired 

commercial warm air furnaces. 10 CFR 

431.76(c)(2). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

noted that Section 40.6.1 of UL 727– 

2018, which pertains to temperature 

measurements using potentiometers and 

thermocouples, has different language 

from UL 727–2006 and incorporates 

different ANSI references. 85 FR 26626, 

26629–26630. Specifically, UL 727– 

2006 specifies that the thermocouple 

wire must conform to the requirements 

specified in the Initial Calibration 

Tolerances for Thermocouples table 

(i.e., Table 8) in International Society of 

Automation (‘‘ISA’’) standard MC96.1, 

‘‘Temperature-Measurement 

Thermocouples’’ (‘‘ANSI/ISA MC96.1’’). 

In contrast, UL 727–2018 states that the 

thermocouple wire must conform to the 

requirements specified in the Tolerance 

on Initial Values of Electromagnetic 

Force (‘‘EMF’’) Versus Temperature 

tables (i.e., Tables 1–3) in ANSI/ASTM 

E230/E230M–17 ‘‘Standard 

Specification for TemperatureElectromotive Force (emf) Tables for 

Standardized Thermocouples,’’ (‘‘ASTM 

E230/E230M–17’’). The thermocouple 

specifications in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 and 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 are 

applicable only to the range of 

temperatures associated with the types 

of thermocouples specified in each of 

the industry standards. As discussed in 

the May 2020 RFI, based on an initial 

review of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17, 

the temperature ranges to which the 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 

specifications apply differ from the 

temperature ranges specified in MC96.1 

for certain thermocouple wires. 

Specifically, ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M– 

17 includes temperature ranges and 

specifications for thermocouple types C, 

N, and mineral-insulated metalsheathed E type, which are not included 

in ANSI/ISA MC96.1; and tolerances on 

initial values of EMF versus temperature 

for extension wires and compensating 

extension wires in ANSI/ASTM E230/ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10732 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

7NFPA 97–2003 defines ‘‘combustible material’’ 

as ‘‘material made of or surfaced with wood, 

compressed paper, plant fiber, plastics, or other 

material that can ignite and burn, whether 

flameproofed or not, or whether plastered or 

unplastered.’’ (Section 3.3.44 of NFPA 97–2003) 

NFPA 97M defines ‘‘combustible material’’ as 

‘‘combustible material, as pertaining to materials 

adjacent to or in contact with heat-producing 

appliances, chimney connectors and vent 

connectors, steam and hot-water pipes, and warmair ducts, means material made of or surfaced with 

wood, compressed paper, plant fibers, or other 

materials that will ignite and burn. Such material 

shall be considered as combustible even though 

flameproofed, fire-retardant treated, or plastered.’’ 

(NFPA 97M, part II, p. 193) 

E230M–17 (i.e., Tables 2 and 3) have 

been added to Section 40.6.1 of UL 727– 

2018. Id. at 85 FR 26630. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment regarding the changes 

resulting from UL 727–2018 referencing 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17. 

Specifically, DOE asked for comment on 

whether the additional references and 

changes to the thermocouple and 

thermocouple extension wire 

requirements would impact the 

representativeness of the measured test 

results or test burden of the DOE CWAF 

test procedure, if adopted. Id. DOE also 

sought comment on why Section 40.6.1 

in UL 727 was changed from referencing 

ANSI/ISA MC96.1 in UL 727–2006, to 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M in UL 727– 

2018. DOE requested input on the 

perceived benefits and/or drawbacks of 

such change. 85 FR 26626, 26630. 

AHRI encouraged DOE to evaluate 

how any additions or changes to the 

thermocouple and thermocouple 

extension wire requirements to 

determine the full impact any 

differences may have on current 

products’ ability to remain compliant. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI also 

commented that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 is an 

obsolete standard that was last 

published in 1982 and was 

administratively withdrawn by ISA in 

2011. Additionally, AHRI stated that the 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 standard 

represents current technologies and is 

maintained on a periodic basis in 

accordance with the ASTM standards 

development procedures. (AHRI, No. 7 

at pp. 2–3) 

DOE has confirmed that ANSI/ISA 

MC96.1 was administratively 

withdrawn by ISA. As the ANSI/ASTM 

E230/E230M–17 standard is the current 

industry standard regarding 

thermocouples, it is expected that 

thermocouples currently being used for 

testing meet the specifications of that 

industry standard. Furthermore, DOE 

notes that the requirements in ANSI/ 

ASTM E230/E230M–17 allow additional 

thermocouple wires for testing, in 

addition to those that were specified in 

ANSI/ISA MC96.1. Therefore, DOE 

expects units tested according to the 

previous requirements in ANSI/ISA 

MC96.1 would subsequently meet those 

in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17. DOE 

received no additional comments on 

this topic. Absent data and information 

to indicate that the requirements in 

ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 are not 

appropriate or result in a significant 

change from the provisions in ANSI/ISA 

MC96.1. DOE has tentatively 

determined that there is not sufficient 

evidence to indicate ANSI/ASTME230/ 

E230M–17 would not meet the 

requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3), related to representative use 

and test burden. Additionally, if DOE 

were to continue to reference a test 

procedure that is administratively 

withdrawn, industry may find it 

difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete 

standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing 

to incorporate the ANSI/ASTM E230/ 

E230M–17 thermocouple provisions 

referenced in UL 727–2018 (i.e., Tables 

1–3 of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17) in 

the DOE test procedure for CWAFs. 

c. NFPA 97–2003 

Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727– 

2018 state that the definitions of terms 

‘‘combustible’’ and ‘‘noncombustible’’ 

are the definitions found within NFPA 

97M, ‘‘Standard Glossary of Terms 

Relating to Chimneys, Gas Vents and 

Heat Producing Appliances’’ (‘‘NFPA 

97M’’). UL 727–2018 does not specify 

which version of NFPA 97M is being 

referenced in the standard, nor does it 

include a publication date of version 

number of the NFPA 97M standard. The 

latest version of NFPA 97M of which 

DOE is aware is a version published in 

1967. DOE also notes that NFPA’s 

website does not contain a NFPA 97M 

publication, and instead contains NFPA 

97–2003 ‘‘Standard Glossary of Terms 

Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and HeatProducing Appliances’’ (NFPA 97– 

2003). NFPA 97–2003 contains 

definitions for ‘‘combustible material’’ 

and ‘‘noncombustible material,’’ 

however NFPA 97M only contains a 

definition for ‘‘combustible material.’’ 

DOE notes that there are minor 

differences between the definitions for 

‘‘combustible material’’ in both 

standards, and that DOE tentatively 

concludes that there are no substantial 

differences.7 Further, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that UL 727–2018 

references an outdated standard (NFPA 

97M) and should instead reference the 

most up-to-date industry standard 

(NFPA 97–2003). Therefore, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

NFPA 97–2003, and is proposing that 

the references to NFPA 97M that are 

relevant to the DOE test procedure (i.e., 

those made within Sections 3.11 and 

3.27 of UL 727–2018) shall instead 

reference NFPA 97–2003. 

DOE seeks comment on its tentative 

conclusion that NFPA 97M is an 

outdated standard that has been 

superseded by NFPA 97–2003. DOE 

seeks comment on its proposal to 

incorporate by reference NFPA 97–2003 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D. 

2. HI BTS–2000 

DOE’s test procedure for oil-fired 

CWAFs references sections of HI BTS– 

2000 that are relevant to fuel oil analysis 

and calculating percent flue loss (i.e., HI 

BTS–2000 sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, 

and 11.1.6.2). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2) and 

(e)(2). DOE’s test procedure includes 

these provisions because DOE has 

previously determined that UL 727 does 

not provide a procedure for calculating 

the percent flue loss of the furnace, 

which is necessary in calculating the 

thermal efficiency (‘‘TE’’), and therefore 

incorporated by reference provisions 

from HI BTS–2000 to calculate the flue 

loss for oil-fired CWAFs. 69 FR 61916, 

61917, 61940. 

In 2015, HI BTS–2000 was 

redesignated by AHRI as AHRI 1500– 

2015. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

identified two substantive changes in 

the sections relevant to the DOE test 

procedure in the update from HI BTS– 

2000 to AHRI 1500–2015 regarding fuel 

oil analysis and calculation of flue loss. 

85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE requested 

comment generally regarding whether 

any of the differences between Sections 

8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI 

BTS–2000 and AHRI 1500–2015 are 

relevant to the DOE test procedure, and 

if so, how such differences would 

impact the representativeness of 

measurements and the associated test 

burden of the DOE commercial warm air 

furnaces test procedure, if adopted. Id. 

at 85 FR 26631. The updates to AHRI 

1500–2015, the comments received from 

stakeholders regarding these updates, 

and DOE’s proposal for each update are 

discussed in detail in the following 

paragraphs. As previously mentioned in 

section III.B of this document, DOE is 

proposing to amend the DOE test 

procedure to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 1500–2015. 

a. Fuel Oil Analysis Requirements 

DOE’s test procedure for oil-fired 

CWAFs includes fuel oil analysis 

requirements that reference Section 

8.2.2 of HI BTS–2000. 10 CFR 

431.76(c)(2). As noted in the May 2020 

RFI, Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500– 

2015 (previously Section 8.2.2 of HI 

BTS–2000) specifies different fuel oil 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10733 

8ASTM D240–09 ‘‘Standard Test Method for Heat 

of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by 

Bomb Calorimeter’’ (‘‘ASTM D240–09’’). 

9ASTM D4809–09a ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels 

by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’ (‘‘ASTM 

D4809–09a’’). 

10ASTM D5291–10 ‘‘Standard Test Methods for 

Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, 

and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and 

Lubricants’’ (‘‘ASTM D5291–10’’). 

11ASTM D396–14a ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Fuel Oils’’ (‘‘ASTM D396–14a’’). 

12ASTM D396–90 ‘‘Standard Specification for 

Fuel Oils’’ (‘‘ASTM D396–90’’). 

analysis requirements (i.e., heating 

value analyzed per ASTM D240–09 8 or 

ASTM D4809–09a,9 hydrogen and 

carbon content analyzed per ASTM 

D5291–10,10 and density and American 

Petroleum Institute (‘‘API’’) 

gravity analyzed per ASTM D396– 

14a 11) than are required in Section 8.2.2 

of HI BTS–2000 (i.e., heat value, 

hydrogen and carbon content, density 

and API gravity analyzed per ASTM 

D396–90 12). 85 FR 26626, 26631. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment regarding the differences 

between the fuel oil analysis 

requirements in each standard, whether 

the differences between the two would 

yield different results during testing, 

and whether adopting AHRI 1500–2015 

would add or reduce burden to the 

current testing requirements of the DOE 

test procedure. 85 FR 26626, 26631. 

The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 

ensure that fuel oil analysis 

requirements are consistent across 

applicable test procedures. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the two 

standards show no significant changes 

and that adoption of AHRI 1500–2015 

would not yield different results during 

testing. AHRI reiterated its support for 

the adoption of the most current edition 

of this standard, stating that this edition 

represents the most current technology 

and information available at the time of 

publication, and that HI BTS–2000 is an 

obsolete standard no longer maintained 

by AHRI. Furthermore, AHRI stated that 

it has determined that there is no 

change in the burden by adopting AHRI 

1500–2015. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4) 

DOE has not received any information 

or data indicating that updating the HI 

BTS–2000 reference to AHRI 1500–2015 

would result in a test procedure that 

would not meet the representativeness 

requirements or be unduly burdensome 

to conduct. DOE has confirmed that HI 

BTS–2000 is no longer maintained by 

AHRI and has tentatively determined 

that it is an obsolete standard. AHRI 

1500–2015 represents the industry’s 

most up to date requirements for fuel oil 

analysis, and no issues or differences 

between the new and old standards that 

would impact results or require 

retesting have been reported to DOE. 

Because of this, and based on 

stakeholder comment, DOE has 

tentatively determined that 

incorporating AHRI 1500–2015 into the 

DOE test procedure would not impact 

the performance of a CWAF under test 

or require CWAFs to be retested. 

Additionally, if DOE were to continue to 

reference a test procedure that is 

administratively withdrawn, industry 

may find it difficult to obtain copies of 

the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE 

has tentatively determined that AHRI 

1500–2015, the successor industry 

standard to the currently referenced HI 

BTS–2000, contains fuel oil analysis 

requirements that are equivalent to the 

requirements in HI BTS–2000 and are 

currently being used by test facilities. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 1500– 

2015, including its fuel oil analysis 

specifications. 

b. Calculation of Carbon Dioxide in Flue 

Gas Losses 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

Section 11.1.4 of HI BTS–2000 requires 

that the carbon dioxide (‘‘CO2’’) value 

used in the calculation of the dry flue 

gas loss for oil must be the measured 

CO2. 85 FR 26626, 26631. Section C7.2.4 

of AHRI 1500–2015 (previously Section 

11.1.4 in HI BTS–2000) includes the 

option to calculate CO2 using the 

measured oxygen (‘‘O2’’) value instead 

of directly measuring the CO2 value. 

The DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 

431.76(d) requires that CO2 must be 

measured. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment on whether the option to 

calculate CO2 in AHRI 1500–2015 yields 

different testing results compared to 

using the measured value, and whether 

it should adopt the AHRI 1500–2015 

provisions that allow for measuring O2

and calculating CO2. Id. The CA IOUs 

stated that measuring CO2 levels is more 

accurate than calculating CO2 levels 

based on O2 measurements. The CA 

IOUs also stated that since certified labs 

and manufacturers are already equipped 

to measure CO2, DOE should maintain 

the current requirement for direct CO2

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

AHRI recommended that the option to 

calculate CO2 based on a measurement 

of O2 be added to the DOE test method. 

AHRI stated that using a calculated CO2

yields comparable results and is 

equivalent using a measured CO2 value. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4) 

DOE has identified O2 sensors on the 

market that are accurate to within ±0.1 

percent, which is equivalent to or 

greater than the accuracy of the CO2

sensors used in labs that perform CWAF 

testing. Therefore, if such O2 sensors are 

used to measure O2 as a means for 

calculating CO2, the value of CO2

obtained through calculation and the 

value obtained through direct 

measurement should be comparable. 

DOE also consulted with independent 

third-party testing facilities and found 

that some of these facilities currently 

use sensors that measure O2 in the flue 

gasses and perform an internal 

calculation to determine CO2 in the flue 

gasses. In addition, AHRI 1500–2015 

includes the option to directly measure 

CO2, so if that option is less 

burdensome, test facilities would 

continue to be able to rely on it. DOE 

has tentatively determined that 

calculating CO2 using a measured O2

value, as specified in AHRI 1500–2015, 

would provide results equivalent to the 

CO2 measurement currently required by 

the DOE test method, and that allowing 

a calculated value of CO2 would 

harmonize with the latest industry 

standard without increasing test burden. 

For these reasons, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the provisions 

in AHRI 1500–2015 that provide an 

optional procedure for measuring CO2

based on measured O2 values. DOE also 

proposes to establish section 3 of 

appendix A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR 

431.76(d) of the current DOE test 

procedure) to reflect DOE’s proposal to 

allow measuring O2, and this includes 

requiring that O2 measurements are 

determined with an instrument that has 

a reading error no greater than ±0.1 

percent. DOE notes that Table C1 of 

AHRI 1500–2017 specifies that O2 shall 

be measured with an accuracy no 

greater than ±0.1 percent, and therefore 

this proposal aligns with the 

requirements in the industry standard. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

adopt the optional method specified in 

AHRI 1500–2015 that allows for 

calculating CO2 using a measured O2

value. DOE also seeks comment on its 

proposal to establish section 3 of 

appendix A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR 

431.76(d) of the current DOE test 

procedure) to accommodate the option 

to calculate CO2 using a measured O2

value. 

3. ANSI Z21.47 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

the test method in 10 CFR 431.76 for 

gas-fired CWAFs requires the use of 

procedures contained in ANSI Z21.47– 

2012 that are relevant to the steady-state 

efficiency measurement (i.e., Sections 

1.1, 2.1 through 2.6, 2.39, and 4.2.1 of 

ANSI Z21.47–2012). 81 FR 26626, 

26630. DOE noted that the majority of 

the test standard provisions relevant to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10734 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13Trane stated that ANSI Z21.47–2016 uses the 

term ‘‘propane’’ in place of the term ‘‘liquified 

natural gas’’. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2) However, DOE 

notes that ANSI Z21.47–2012 uses the term 

‘‘liquified petroleum gas,’’ not ‘‘liquified natural 

gas,’’ and believes this was what Trane intended to 

note. 

DOE’s test procedure did not change in 

the most up-to-date version of the 

industry standard at that time, ANSI 

Z21.47–2016. Id. The revisions that 

were made were mostly editorial in 

nature, including moving Section 2 in 

ANSI Z21.47–2012 to Section 5 in ANSI 

Z21.47–2016, among other structural 

changes. In reviewing the 2012 and 

2016 versions of the standard, DOE 

identified one apparent typographical 

error in the 2016 version. 

Since the publication of the May 2020 

RFI, an updated version of the ANSI 

Z21.47 standard was published in 2021: 

ANSI Z21.47–2021. DOE notes that the 

only substantive difference between the 

2016 and 2021 versions relevant to the 

sections referenced by the DOE test 

procedure is related to burner operating 

characteristics tests specified in Section 

5.4a of both ANSI Z21.47–2016 and 

ANSI Z21.47–2021. 

The updates to ANSI Z21.47–2012 in 

ANSI Z21.47–2016 and ANSI Z21.47– 

2021, as well as the scope of the 

industry standard, are discussed in 

further detail in the following sections. 

As previously mentioned in section III.B 

of this document, DOE is proposing to 

amend the DOE test procedure to 

reference ANSI Z21.47–2021, as it is the 

most recent version of the industry test 

procedure. 

a. Scope of ANSI Z21.47 

DOE’s test procedure for CWAFs 

currently includes reference to the 

scope Section (section 1.1) of ANSI 

Z21.47–2012. 10 CFR 431.76(c). As 

previously stated in section III.B.1.a of 

this document, DOE defines the scope 

for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 

431.76(a), and DOE’s test procedure for 

CWAFs requires use of ANSI Z21.47 

only for provisions pertinent to the 

measurement of the steady-state 

efficiency. 

While DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47– 

2021 in its entirety, DOE is proposing to 

explicitly identify the provisions of 

ANSI Z21.47–2021 that are applicable to 

the DOE test procedure for CWAFs, 

which would not include the scope 

section of that industry standard. 

b. Typographical Error 

Section 2.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47–2012 

and the corresponding Section 5.3.2(c) 

of ANSI Z21.47–2021 provide 

installation requirements for horizontal 

furnaces. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

noted that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI 

Z21.47–2016 appears to contain a 

typographical error by referencing 

‘‘Figure 4, Enclosure types for alcove 

and closet installation tests for 

horizontal furnaces.’’ 85 FR 26626, 

26630. The title of Figure 4 in ANSI 

Z21.47–2016 is ‘‘Enclosure types for 

alcove and closet installation tests for 

up-flow and down-flow furnaces,’’ and 

as titled, Figure 4 applies only to upflow and down-flow furnaces. It appears 

that the appropriate reference in Section 

5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47–2016 should 

be to Figure 5, ‘‘Enclosed types for 

alcove and closet installation tests for 

horizontal furnaces.’’ 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment on whether Section 

5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47–2016 should 

refer to Figure 5 in the test procedure, 

rather than Figure 4. Id. AHRI, Trane, 

and Carrier all agreed that the reference 

to Figure 4 was a typographical error, 

and that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI 

Z21.47–2016 should refer to Figure 5. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 

2; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1) 

In the update to the industry 

standard, ANSI Z21.47–2021 corrected 

this typographical error by having 

Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) reference Figure 5. 

Therefore, the typographical error in 

ANSI Z21.47–2016 is no longer relevant 

because DOE is now proposing to 

incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47– 

2021. 

c. Propane Nomenclature 

DOE also asked for comment 

regarding any differences between ANSI 

Z21.47–2012 and ANSI Z21.47–2016, 

and specifically whether there are any 

differences other than those already 

identified by DOE in the May 2020 RFI. 

Id. In response to DOE’s request for 

comment regarding any additional 

differences between ANSI Z21.47–2012 

and ANSI Z21.47–2016, AHRI and 

Trane both noted that in ANSI Z21.47– 

2016, the term ‘‘propane’’ is used in 

place of the term ‘‘liquified petroleum 

gas;’’ however, the commenters stated 

that this change is not substantive.13

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3; Trane, No. 9 at p. 

2) Carrier did not specifically comment 

on this nomenclature change, although 

it stated that there are no additional 

updates in AHRI Z21.47–2016 that 

would impact the DOE test procedure, 

other than those already identified by 

DOE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 1) 

DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47–2021 

also uses the term ‘‘propane’’ in place of 

‘‘liquified petroleum gas.’’ DOE 

tentatively agrees with AHRI and Trane 

that the use of ‘‘propane’’ instead of 

‘‘liquified petroleum gas’’ is for 

clarification only, and, therefore, does 

not affect the test procedure. Therefore, 

DOE is proposing to incorporate by 

reference ASNI Z21.47–2021 and 

specify use of the sections that 

correspond to the sections currently 

referenced in the DOE test procedure 

(i.e., Sections 5.1 through 5.6, 5.40, and 

7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021),), including 

the language referring to ‘‘propane’’ 

instead of ‘‘liquefied petroleum gas.’’ 

d. Burner Operating Characteristics 

Tests 

Section 2.4a of ANSI Z21.47–2012 is 

referenced in the current DOE test 

procedure for CWAFs. 10 CFR 

431.76(c)(2). This section states that 

three separate tests (each specified in 

Sections 2.9.1(a), 2.10.1, and 2.11.3, 

respectively, of ANSI Z21.47–2012) 

shall be performed prior to the 

performance test to ensure that there is 

no burner flashback and that the 

ignition system is working properly. 

Section 2.4a states that these three 

burner operating characteristics tests 

shall be conducted with test gas G (i.e., 

butane-air). ANSI Z21.47–2021 includes 

a minor alteration to these provisions, 

which allows for performing these tests 

with a different test gas. Section 5.4a of 

ANSI Z21.47–2021 (previously section 

2.4a in ANSI Z21.47–2012) states that 

the burner operating characteristics tests 

shall be performed with either test gas 

G or, at the manufacturer’s option for 

testing premixed burners, test gas H 

(i.e., propane-air). DOE notes that the 

burner operating characteristics tests, 

including the test gas used for these 

tests, do not affect the TE measurement 

of a CWAF. Therefore, DOE does not 

have evidence to deviate from the 

industry test procedure and proposes to 

adopt Section 5.4 of ANSI Z21.47–2021, 

including the previsions regarding the 

use of test gas as an option when 

performing the burner characteristics 

tests. 

DOE seeks comment on whether the 

option provided in Section 5.4a of ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 to use test gas H when 

performing the three burner 

characteristics tests would impact the 

representativeness or burden of the 

thermal efficiency test. 

4. ANSI/ASHRAE 103 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

DOE’s test procedure for gas-fired 

condensing CWAFs references Sections 

7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–2007. 10 

CFR 431.76; 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE 

did not identify any substantive changes 

in the sections currently referenced by 

the DOE test procedure in the update 

from ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007 to ANSI/ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10735 

14 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) requires that test 

procedures be reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial 

equipment (or class thereof) during a representative 

average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(3) requires that if the test procedure 

is a procedure for determining estimated annual 

operating costs, such procedure shall provide that 

such costs shall be calculated from measurements 

of energy use in a representative average-use cycle 

(as determined by the Secretary), and from 

representative average unit costs of the energy 

needed to operate such equipment during such 

cycle. 

15 10 CFR 431.76(f) (i.e., section 5 of appendix A) 

includes a TE adjustment for condensing CWAFs. 

This adjustment adds the additional heat gain 

(expressed in a percent) from condensation of water 

vapor to the TE and subtracts the heat loss 

(expressed as a percent) due to the flue condensate 

flowing down the drain. 

16 DOE notes that Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47– 

2012 and Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 specify 

a maximum jacket loss of 1.5 percent for any 

furnace not covered by ‘‘Federal Energy Acts’’ (i.e., 

not regulated by DOE). This provision is not 

referenced as part of the DOE test procedure. 

17 DOE also received comment from NEEA 

supporting the addition of jacket loss to the TE 

metric in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI. 

(NEEA, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0024 at pp. 6– 

7) 

ASHRAE 103–2017; however, DOE 

asked for comment on whether there 

were any differences between the two 

standards that are relevant to the DOE 

test procedure, and if so, how such 

differences would impact the 

representativeness of measurements and 

the test burden of the DOE test 

procedure for CWAFs, if adopted. Id. 

AHRI commented that Sections 

11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 in ANSI/ASHRAE 

103–2017 were modified to replace a 

fixed numerical value with 

mathematical expressions, but that there 

were no significant changes to the 

clauses specified in the DOE test 

procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Trane 

stated that equations were modified 

only in terms from numeric to 

mathematical, but that this did not 

change the outcomes of the 

measurements. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2) 

DOE acknowledges that the two 

equations in Sections 11.3.7.1 and 

11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 

have been modified. ANSI/ASHRAE 

103–2007 includes variables in each 

equation that are defined as constants in 

the list of variables below each equation 

(e.g., latent heat of vaporization equals 

1053.3 Btu per pound mass (‘‘Btu/ 

lbm’’)); in contrast, ANSI/ASHRAE 103– 

2017 inserts the constants directly into 

each equation. DOE has tentatively 

determined that the changes to the 

equations referenced by DOE 

(specifically those in clauses 11.3.7.1 

and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103– 

2017) are editorial in nature and do not 

change the calculated values. As 

previously mentioned in section III.B of 

this document, DOE is proposing to 

amend the DOE test procedure to 

reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017, 

which would include these changes. 

C. ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’ Metric 

As previously discussed, EPCA 

requires that the test procedures for 

CWAFs be those generally accepted 

industry testing procedures or rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test 

procedure or rating procedure is 

amended, the Secretary shall amend the 

test procedure for the product as 

necessary to be consistent with the 

amended industry test procedure or 

rating procedure unless the Secretary 

determines, by rule, published in the 

Federal Register and supported by clear 

and convincing evidence, that to do so 

would not meet the requirements in 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to 

representative use and test burden.14 (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

As discussed in further detail in the 

sub-sections that immediately follow, 

DOE has tentatively determined that a 

test procedure that includes jacket loss 

and accounts for part-load operation 

would better produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, 

and estimated operating costs of CWAFs 

during a representative average use 

cycle. CWAFs are typically installed 

outdoors and as a result jacket losses 

can be a significant source of energy 

loss. Further, for models with multiple 

heating stages, performance can vary at 

the maximum input heating stage as 

compared to reduced input stage(s). 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to account 

for these factors by establishing a new 

test procedure and metric for CWAFs, 

termed ‘‘Thermal Efficiency Two’’ 

(‘‘TE2’’), which would generally adopt 

the same changes proposed for the 

current test procedure at appendix A, 

but would additionally account for 

jacket losses and part load operation. 

The proposed TE2 test procedure would 

account for flue losses in the same 

manner as the current TE metric. DOE 

proposes to establish a new appendix B 

to 10 CFR part 431, which would 

contain the test method for TE2. 

If adopted, manufacturers would be 

permitted to make voluntary 

representations using TE2. Mandatory 

use of the TE2 test procedure would be 

required at such time as compliance is 

required with amended energy 

conservation standards based on TE2, 

should DOE adopt such standards. DOE 

is, therefore, also proposing to retain the 

test method for TE, which is proposed 

to be modified as discussed elsewhere 

in this document, in appendix A for use 

until such time as TE2 becomes 

mandatory. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

establish a new test procedure (i.e., 

appendix B) and metric (i.e., TE2) for 

CWAFs, which would generally adopt 

the same changes proposed for the 

current test procedure at appendix A 

and account for flue losses in the same 

manner as the current TE metric, but 

would additionally account for jacket 

losses and part load operation. 

1. Jacket Loss 

As discussed, the current energy 

efficiency metric for CWAFs is TE. 10 

CFR 431.77. TE for a CWAF is defined 

in 10 CFR 431.72 as 100 percent minus 

the percent flue loss, and is calculated, 

as specified in 10 CFR 431.76(e), by 

following the procedure specified in 

Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–2012 for 

gas-fired CWAFs and Sections 11.1.4, 

11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS–2000 for 

oil-fired CWAFs.15 A test method and 

calculations for determining the jacket 

loss percentage (i.e., the hourly heat loss 

through the jacket divided by the hourly 

input and multiplied by 100) are 

included in Section 2.39 of ANSI 

Z21.47–2012 (and the corresponding 

Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47–2021), 

which is referenced in the DOE test 

procedure. However, the jacket loss 

percentage is not included in the 

equation used to calculate TE.16

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on whether jacket loss should 

be accounted for in the calculation of 

TE. Specifically, DOE asked for 

comment regarding information and 

data on whether and to what extent 

inclusion of jacket loss would provide 

results that would more appropriately 

reflect energy efficiency during a 

representative average use cycle, and 

also information and data as to the test 

burden that would be associated with 

potential inclusion of jacket loss as part 

of the DOE CWAF test procedure. Id 

ASAP, NEEA,17 and the CA IOUs each 

supported adding jacket loss to the TE 

metric, stating that jacket loss could 

have a large impact on overall thermal 

efficiency. (ASAP, No. 5 at p.1; NEEA, 

No. 10 at p.3; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p.4) 

Specifically, the CA IOUs stated that 

furnace jacket losses have significant 

variations based on the installation 

configuration (e.g., stand-alone vs. 

embedded in a commercial unitary airconditioner (‘‘CUAC’’)) and the mode of 

operation used for testing (e.g., full-load 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10736 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

18 DOE also received comment from Carrier 

opposing this in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, 

similarly, stating that jacket loss would have a 

minimal effect on performance, and that this 

minimal affect does not justify its inclusion the TE. 

(Carrier, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0013 at p. 5) 

19The Join Advocates include the following 

organizations: Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships. 

20The version of ASHRAE 90.1 that was available 

at the time of the May 2012 final rule (i.e., ASHRAE 

90.1–2010) includes the same 0.75-percent jacket 

loss requirement that is in ASHRAE 90.1–2019. 

21 DOE notes that it has adopted dual metrics 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A), when the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air 

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has amended 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

and set a dual metric and accompanying standard 

levels. See, e.g., 77 FR 28928 (May 16, 2012) (DOE 

adopted energy conservation standards for cooling 

and heating modes in terms of both Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (EER) and Coefficient of 

Performance (COP) for variable refrigerant flow 

(VRF) water-source heat pumps with cooling 

capacities at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less 

than 760,000 Btu/h (for which DOE did not 

previously have standards) in response to updated 

standards for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1.) DOE has also adopted a dual metric where 

a consensus agreement has been presented to DOE 

for adoption as a direct final rule (DFR) pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). See, e.g., 76 FR 37408 (June 

27, 2011) (For central air conditioners, DOE 

adopted dual metrics (i.e., the Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio (SEER) and EER) for the hot-dry 

region as recommended by a consensus agreement 

supported by a variety of interested stakeholders 

including manufacturers and environmental and 

efficiency advocates.) DOE has interpreted these 

specific statutory provisions as authorizing an 

exception to the general rule previously stated. 

vs. part-load), and suggested that DOE 

consider using the method in ASHRAE 

155P for determining commercial boiler 

jacket loss for CWAFs, if this method is 

repeatable and reproducible. (CA IOUs, 

No. 8 at p. 4) NEEA stated that its 

energy modeling showed that improved 

insulation, decreased casing leakage, 

and decreased damper leakage can save 

up to 11 percent of annual energy 

consumption, and that this magnitude 

of energy savings is comparable with 

that of a condensing secondary heat 

exchanger, which is listed as ‘‘max 

tech’’ in the current CWAF energy 

conservation standards rulemaking. 

NEEA also stated that although CWAFs 

are separately regulated from CUACs, 

the two types of equipment are often 

contained within the same rooftop unit 

(‘‘RTU’’), and that enclosure 

improvements that would improve 

efficiency of CWAFs would also 

improve efficiency for CUACs. (NEEA, 

No. 10 at pp. 3–4) ASAP stated that 

since the impact of improved insulation 

is not currently considered in the test 

procedure, two CWAF units could have 

the same efficiency rating and yet 

provide significantly different 

performance if one unit had better 

insulation than the other. ASAP further 

explained that capturing the impact of 

improved insulation would provide 

testing results that would better reflect 

the efficiency of CWAFs during a 

representative average use cycle, and, in 

turn, provide better information to 

purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) 

AHRI, Carrier,18 and Trane opposed 

incorporating jacket loss into the TE 

metric and asserted that it would have 

a minimal effect on performance. (AHRI, 

No. 7 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 4 at pp. 1– 

2; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane 

stated that including jacket loss in the 

TE calculation would result in minimal 

change in TE and would lower the TE 

of the CWAF. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5 

Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) Carrier also stated 

that for larger commercial equipment, 

factory installed options are available 

that can increase the size of the cabinet 

downstream of the furnace section, and 

that test burden on manufacturers 

would increase significantly if all 

options that impact jacket size are 

required to be tested. Carrier asserted 

that DOE would have to demonstrate the 

energy benefit since jacket losses are 

relatively low and their inclusion would 

result in increased test burden, different 

design requirements, and significantly 

higher cost for the manufacturer and the 

end customer if the minimum efficiency 

standards did not materially change. 

(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2) 

On May 12, 2020, DOE published an 

energy conservation standards RFI 

(‘‘May 2020 ECS RFI’’) for air-cooled 

CUACs, commercial unitary heat 

pumps, and CWAFs. 85 FR 27941. DOE 

received multiple comments from 

stakeholders in response to the May 

2020 ECS RFI that are related to jacket 

loss and that are relevant to DOE’s 

consideration of whether to incorporate 

jacket losses into the test procedure for 

CWAFs. Specifically, the Joint 

Advocates recommended that DOE 

amend the CWAF test procedure to 

include effects of improved 

insulation.19 (Joint Advocates, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0023 at p. 3) AHRI 

stated that it does not see a justification 

to include jacket loss in the measured 

energy efficiency, and that there would 

be minimal, if any, change in the usable 

heat provided to the end user if jacket 

loss is added to the TE calculation. 

(AHRI, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042– 

0014 at p. 4) Goodman stated that jacket 

losses should not be included in the 

CWAF test procedure, and that 

inclusion of jacket loss would require 

new and more difficult testing and 

increased burden. (Goodman, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0017 at pp. 2–3) 

Lastly, Goodman recommended DOE 

not include jacket loss in the DOE test 

procedure because ASHRAE 90.1–2019 

requires that CWAF jacket loss not 

exceed 0.75 percent of the CWAF input 

rating, and therefore any effect on 

measured performance would be small 

enough to not justify the added burden. 

Id. 

Regarding Goodman’s reference to the 

jacket loss requirement for CWAFs in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019, DOE notes that as 

part of a final rule published on May 16, 

2012 (‘‘May 2012 final rule’’) amending 

energy conservation standards and test 

procedures for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

equipment, DOE addressed the 

ASHRAE 90.1 requirement pertaining to 

jacket loss.20 In the May 2012 final rule, 

DOE determined that if ASHRAE adds 

a prescriptive requirement for 

equipment for which an efficiency level 

is already specified (e.g., a jacket loss 

requirement in addition to a TE 

requirement), DOE does not have the 

authority to use a dual descriptor for a 

single equipment type. 77 FR 28928, 

28937. Specifically, DOE explained that 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the 

Secretary has authority to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

specified equipment, but under 42 

U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute’s definition 

of the term ‘‘energy conservation 

standard’’ is limited to: (A) A 

performance standard that prescribes a 

minimum level of energy efficiency or a 

maximum quantity of energy use for a 

product; or (B) a design requirement for 

a product. DOE stated that the language 

of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a 

performance standard or a single design 

standard. As such, DOE concluded that 

a standard that establishes both a 

performance standard and a design 

requirement is beyond the scope of 

DOE’s legal authority. Id.21

Additionally, DOE previously 

considered including jacket loss in the 

TE calculation in a NOPR published on 

December 13, 1999. 64 FR 69598, 69601 

(‘‘December 1999 NOPR’’). In the 

December 1999 NOPR, DOE did not 

propose to include jacket loss in the TE 

calculation, having determined that, 

consistent with adopting industry test 

standards referenced in ASHRAE/IES 

Standard 90.1–1989, the statute’s intent 

is to assign the same meaning to the 

term ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ as its 

definition in the corresponding 

referenced standards, i.e., 100 percent 

minus percent flue loss. Id. DOE’s 

determination in the December 1999 

NOPR was informed by a public 

workshop held on April 14 and 15, 

1998, and what DOE understood to be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10737 

22This description of a CWAF designed for 

outdoor installation is consistent with a residential 

weatherized warm air furnace specified in 10 CFR 

430.2. 

23 DOE notes that the jacket loss factor in Section 

11.2.11 of ASHRAE 103–2017 for equipment 

intended for indoor installation within a heated 

space is 0.0. As such, jacket loss would be 

calculated as zero. Therefore, as previously 

mentioned, DOE is proposing the jacket loss would 

be assumed to be zero for CWAFs intended for 

indoor installation within a heated space. 

the consensus of the participants that 

TE should not include jacket loss, 

because ANSI Z21.47 defined TE 

without jacket loss. Id. As such, DOE 

acknowledges that the TE as currently 

determined under ANSI Z21.47 does not 

include jacket loss even if it is a 

requirement of ASHRAE 90.1 

As noted, DOE is generally required to 

adopt a test procedure for CWAFs that 

is consistent with the generally accepted 

industry testing procedures developed 

or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, 

as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, 

if such industry test procedure (i.e., the 

test procedure referenced in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1) is updated, DOE must 

amend its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended industry 

test procedure, unless DOE determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and 

(C)) Additionally, EPCA also requires 

that DOE periodically evaluate the test 

procedures for CWAFs to determine 

whether amended test procedures 

would more accurately or fully comply 

with the requirements for the test 

procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)) 

For the reasons that follow, DOE has 

tentatively determined that 

incorporating a jacket loss measurement 

into the test procedure and metric for 

CWAFs would improve the 

representativeness of the test procedure 

by capturing an attribute of CWAFs 

other than combustion efficiency (i.e., 

jacket loss) that can have a substantive 

impact on the overall energy use of 

CWAFs. 

The current TE is essentially a 

measure of combustion efficiency. 

However, the energy efficiency of the 

equipment is influenced by factors in 

addition to combustion efficiency (i.e., 

jacket loss). Jacket loss contributes to 

the overall energy use of a CWAF and 

is, therefore, one of the parameters that 

determines a CWAF’s overall efficiency. 

Heat loss through the cabinet (i.e., jacket 

loss) is proportional to the thickness of 

the insulation and/or insulative material 

used. DOE tentatively agrees with ASAP 

that CWAFs with the same TE, as 

determined under the current DOE test 

procedure, could have different 

performance in the field if one unit has 

different insulation than the other. DOE 

also notes that the vast majority of 

CWAFs are installed within CUACs 

located on rooftops, and that these 

outdoor installations will result in 

greater jacket loss than CWAFs installed 

indoors because of the colder ambient 

air. As such, DOE tentatively agrees 

with the CA IOUs that performance of 

a CWAF will vary depending on 

installation location because of different 

levels of jacket loss. Differences in 

performance based on differences in 

jacket loss are not captured by the 

current DOE test procedure and metric. 

Incorporating jacket loss into a TE2 

metric will therefore account for 

differences in CWAF insulation. 

Additionally, weighting jacket loss 

based on installation location, which 

DOE discusses more in the following 

paragraphs, will account for the 

differences in jacket loss across various 

installation locations. 

DOE is proposing that, for CWAFs 

that are designed for outdoor 

installation (including but not limited to 

CWAFs that are weatherized, or 

approved for resistance to wind, rain, or 

snow) or designed for indoor 

installation in an unheated space (i.e., 

isolated combustion systems),22 jacket 

loss shall be measured in accordance 

with the Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47– 

2021. DOE is proposing to multiply this 

measured jacket loss by jacket loss 

factors to account for differences in 

installation location. DOE proposes that 

a jacket loss factor of 1.7 for CWAFs 

designed for indoor installation in an 

unheated space (i.e., isolated 

combustion system), or 3.3 for CWAFs 

designed for outdoor installation 

(including, but not limited to, CWAFs 

that are weatherized, or approved for 

resistance to wind, rain, or snow) be 

multiplied by the measured jacket loss 

before subtracting the product from 

thermal efficiency (i.e., TE2 is 

calculated as 100 percent minus flue 

and jacket loss, when the jacket loss is 

the measured jacket loss multiplied by 

the jacket loss factor). DOE is also 

proposing that the jacket loss shall be 

zero for CWAFs designed for 

installation indoors within a heated 

space because the heat loss through the 

CWAF’s jacket would go directly into 

the heated space. DOE notes that this 

approach is consistent with the 

approach taken in appendix N to 

subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 for 

measuring AFUE in residential furnaces, 

which references ASHRAE 103. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined these are the appropriate 

jacket loss factors to use based on the 

values found in Section 11.2.11 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017, and is proposing to 

use these factors in newly proposed 

appendix B.23

As previously mentioned, DOE 

references Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47– 

2012 (now Section 5.40 in ANSI 

Z21.47–21), which includes a test 

procedure for determining jacket loss. 

DOE does not currently reference Annex 

J of ANSI Z21.47–2012, which includes 

the equation used to calculate jacket 

loss. Annex J also includes Figures J.1 

and J.2 which are used to determine the 

coefficient of convection and coefficient 

of radiation for the surface, which are 

two coefficients used in the calculation 

of jacket loss. DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the jacket loss 

test procedure specified in Section 5.40 

of ANSI Z21.47–2021, which includes a 

reference to Annex J of ANSI Z21.47– 

2021, for both gas-fired and oil-fired 

CWAFs. Specifically, DOE is proposing 

to adopt this test procedure for 

measuring jacket loss when testing to 

newly proposed appendix B to 

determine TE2. 

To the extent that manufacturers 

participate in the industry certification 

program under ASHRAE 90.1, such 

manufacturers should already be 

measuring jacket loss according to the 

test procedure proposed in this NOPR 

due to the prescriptive jacket loss 

requirement in ASHRAE 90.1. Based on 

a review of models on the market, DOE 

found the majority of CWAFs indicate 

in product literature that they comply 

with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1, 

which indicates that many CWAFs are 

already tested for jacket loss. 

DOE is proposing to adopt the 

industry test standard for determining 

jacket loss that DOE has tentatively 

determined is currently being used by 

industry, and as such would not be 

unduly burdensome. Additionally, 

testing according to appendix B would 

be mandatory only at such time as 

compliance is required with amended 

energy conservation standards based on 

TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. 

Therefore, DOE proposes to incorporate 

jacket loss in the proposed TE2 metric. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require jacket loss be measured when 

testing CWAFs designed for outdoor 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10738 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

24NEEA referenced the following energy model: 

Energy Modeling of Commercial Gas Rooftop Units 

in Support of CSA P.8 Standard. 

installation and designed for indoor 

installation within an unheated space 

when determining TE2 pursuant to 

newly proposed appendix B, and on its 

proposed method for measuring jacket 

loss. DOE also seeks comment on its 

proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs 

intended for indoor installation within 

a heated space would be assumed to be 

zero, and on its proposed jacket loss 

factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor 

installation and designed for indoor 

installation within an unheated space. 

2. Part-Load Performance 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

received comments from NEEA and the 

CA IOUs encouraging DOE to adopt a 

metric and test procedure that account 

for operation at part load. (NEEA, No. 10 

pp. 1–2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA 

and the CA IOUs both asserted that 

CWAFs spend the majority of their time 

in a low fire mode (i.e., part load) and 

that adopting a metric that includes part 

load would better represent the 

operation of CWAFs in the field. Id. 

More specifically, NEEA asserted that 

CWAFs often spend 10 to 20 percent of 

their time at high fire mode (i.e., full 

load), and that DOE should update its 

test procedure to include reduced firing 

rates (i.e., part-load) and seasonal 

performance so that the test procedure 

is more representative of an average use 

cycle.24 NEEA recommended a seasonal 

metric be used, asserting that jacket loss, 

damper leakage, and fan performance 

would be affected by CWAFs installed 

in colder climates. (NEEA, No. 10 p.2) 

NEEA also commented that other DOE 

test procedures for HVAC equipment 

have been transitioning to measure partload and seasonal performance, and that 

the CWAF test procedure should 

likewise be updated. (NEEA, No. 10 p. 

1) The CA IOUs stated that cyclic losses 

due to cycling of the burners negatively 

impacts efficiency of a CWAF, and that 

accounting for this would increase the 

representativeness of the test procedure. 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 1–2) 

AHRI commented that any additional 

requirements beyond the current test 

procedure provisions would be a burden 

to manufacturers, and that any changes 

that affect testing or calculations are 

likely to be overly burdensome 

compared to any benefits, due to what 

AHRI characterized as the relatively 

small market for these appliances. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 77) 

DOE reviewed the current CWAF 

market and found that the vast majority 

of CWAFs certified to DOE have two or 

more stages of heating. DOE notes that 

CWAFs with two or more stages can 

operate at reduced firing rates to meet 

the building load. Under the current 

DOE test procedure, TE reflects the 

efficiency of the burner and the 

efficiency of the heat exchanger at full 

load. When a CWAF burner operates at 

a reduced input rate (i.e., part load), the 

ratio of heat exchanger surface area to 

burner input rate is increased (in 

comparison to operation at full load), 

which theoretically should increase the 

efficiency of the CWAF compared to 

operating at full load, if other aspects of 

operation are consistent. However, 

depending on the air-fuel ratio or other 

factors impacting combustion efficiency, 

the combustion efficiency could 

decrease, and therefore, the change in 

performance, including whether 

efficiency is improved or reduced at 

part-load, could vary from model to 

model. Therefore, CWAF part-load 

performance has the potential to be 

substantively different from full-load 

performance and including part-load 

performance in the measurement of 

CWAF efficiency would allow the 

efficiency metric to account for this 

potential difference and be more 

representative. To provide for measured 

test results that are more representative 

of the average use cycle of CWAFs that 

are two-stage and modulating burner 

units (i.e., CWAFs that operate at less 

than full load), DOE proposes to include 

a part-load measurement in the test 

procedure proposed at newly proposed 

appendix B. DOE has tentatively 

determined that including a part-load 

test procedure within the DOE test 

procedure would better capture how 

CWAFs operate in the field and would 

be more representative of the 

performance of CWAFs during an 

average use cycle, particularly for 

models that have two or more stages of 

heating. Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

include both part-load and full-load 

operation tests in the newly proposed 

appendix B. 

Specifically, DOE proposes to require 

that, for two-stage or modulating burner 

models, the flue loss of the unit under 

test be determined as specified in 

section 2 of appendix A (formerly 10 

CFR 431.76(c)) at both the maximum 

and minimum input rates on the 

nameplate of the unit. The jacket loss 

(as described in section III.C.1 of this 

document) would be determined at the 

maximum input rate and optionally be 

determined at the minimum input rate. 

If the jacket loss were determined only 

at the maximum input rate, it would be 

assigned an equivalent value at the 

minimum input rate. TE2 would then be 

calculated as the average of the 

efficiencies determined at both the 

maximum and minimum input rates 

using the flue loss and jacket loss 

determined at each input rate. 

Averaging the performance at the 

maximum and minimum input rate 

weights both full-load and part-load 

CWAF operation equally (i.e., 

representing CWAF operation at full 

load 50 percent of the time and part 

load 50 percent of the time). DOE 

considered the relationship between 

full-load operation and part-load 

operation presented in the comments 

from NEEA. However, the 10 to 20 

percent estimate of operation at full load 

referenced by NEEA was based on data 

for climate regions represented by 

Winnipeg, Montreal, and Toronto. DOE 

has tentatively determined that 

operating conditions represented by 

these climate zones are not 

representative of the United States, 

which includes more temperate climate 

zones. 

DOE also considered relying on the 

part-load and full-load burner operating 

hour calculations for two-stage and 

modulating furnaces specified in 

Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103– 

2017. However, DOE tentatively 

determined that this approach would 

not be representative because the 

calculations specified in Appendix C of 

ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017 include 

assumptions that are specific to 

residential furnaces (e.g., national 

average heating load hours) that may not 

be representative for CWAFs. For 

example, CWAFs may operate more 

frequently during business hours, 

whereas a residential furnace may 

operate more frequently during offbusiness hours when people are more 

likely to be at home. 

DOE tentatively finds that CWAFs 

spend a substantive amount of time in 

part-load. Absent nationally 

representative data or information to 

support weighting factors for full-load 

and part-load performance that are more 

representative of an average use cycle, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

weighting both equally is appropriate at 

this time, however DOE seeks comment 

on this tentative determination. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

add a part-load test procedure to be 

incorporated into the newly proposed 

TE2 metric. DOE also seeks comment on 

its proposal to calculate TE2 by 

averaging performance at the maximum 

and minimum fire rate and seeks and 

any related data. DOE also requests 

comment on alternate weighting values, 

including those discussed, that may be 

more nationally representative of an 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10739 

25NEEA stated that these efficient components 

include low leak dampers, improved insulation or 

thermally broken insulation, variable speed fans, 

economizing capability, improved controls, demand 

control ventilation, modulating heat/high turndown 

furnaces, and heat recovery. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 3) 

average use, along with any relevant 

data. 

D. Electrical Energy Consumption 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

the DOE test procedure for CWAFs does 

not include any measurement of 

electrical consumption in its 

determination of the efficiency of 

CWAFs, including electrical 

consumption of blowers/fans, controls, 

or other auxiliary electrical 

consumption. 85 FR 26626, 26632. DOE 

explained that CWAFs are typically part 

of a single package that also includes 

air-conditioning equipment, and that 

the test method and metrics for 

commercial air-conditioning and 

heating equipment (i.e., integrated 

energy efficiency ratio (‘‘IEER’’)) 

accounts for the electrical consumption 

of the blower; as such, the electrical 

consumption of the blower has not been 

included in the CWAF test method. Id. 

DOE noted that any auxiliary electrical 

consumption associated only with the 

furnace operation when heating is not 

accounted for in any metric. Id. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment on whether it should consider 

including the electrical consumption of 

CWAFs in the CWAF efficiency metric 

or test procedure, as well as on the 

merits and burdens of such approach. 

Id. DOE also asked for comment on 

which components’ electrical 

consumption would be appropriate to 

include, noting that the electrical 

consumption of the CWAF blower is 

typically factored into other commercial 

equipment efficiency metrics and test 

procedures. Id. 

ASAP, the CA IOUs, and NEEA 

recommended that DOE account for 

electrical consumption of the CWAF. 

(CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2; ASAP, No. 5 

at p. 1; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) More 

specifically, ASAP urged DOE to ensure 

that all electrical consumption 

associated with CWAFs (including 

CWAF auxiliary electrical consumption) 

is captured in either the CWAF test 

procedure or the test procedure for 

CUACs. Specifically, regarding auxiliary 

electrical consumption, ASAP stated 

that capturing auxiliary electrical 

consumption would better reflect the 

efficiency of CWAFs during a 

representative average use cycle, thus 

providing better information to 

purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP 

also stated that the term sheet from the 

Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 

Federal Advisory Committee 

(‘‘ASRAC’’) working group for CUACs 

and CWAFs contained a 

recommendation that DOE amend the 

test procedure for CUACs to better 

capture total fan energy use, including 

the energy use associated with the 

supply fan operation when the unit is in 

heating mode. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) The 

CA IOUs also noted that the ASRAC 

term sheet includes a recommendation 

to update the CUAC test procedure to 

‘‘better represent total fan energy use, 

including considering (a) alternative 

external static pressures; and (b) 

operation other than mechanical cooling 

and heating.’’ (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1–2; 

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

NEEA stated that electrical energy 

should be considered in total energy 

consumption in all operating modes, 

citing that RTUs spend the majority of 

their time in ventilation mode, and that 

electrical energy consumption of an 

RTU is 4 to 11 percent of total seasonal 

energy consumption. (NEEA, No. 10 at 

p. 4) Additionally, NEEA stated that the 

current CWAF test procedure does not 

capture many energy efficient features 

that are currently available on the 

market and, therefore, does not 

effectively allow manufacturers to 

distinguish more efficient equipment.25

NEEA also encouraged DOE to consider 

a calculation-based test procedure to 

include other energy using components 

and operating modes. (NEEA, No. 10 at 

pp. 3–4) DOE also received comment 

from the Joint Advocates in response to 

the May 2020 ECS RFI, recommending 

DOE amend the CWAF test procedure to 

capture auxiliary electrical 

consumption. (Joint Advocates, EERE– 

2019–BT–STD–0042–0023 at p. 3) 

AHRI, Carrier, and Trane 

recommended against including the 

electrical consumption of CWAFs in the 

efficiency metric or test procedure. 

(AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p. 

4; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that 

the electrical energy consumption of 

CWAF components is minimal 

compared to the fossil fuel energy used 

for heating. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane 

explained that combustion fan motor 

wattage is very small as a percentage of 

these commercial furnaces (Trane, No. 9 

at p. 4) More specifically, AHRI stated 

that the energy consumption of a 

combustion fan is a fraction of a percent 

of the total energy consumption. Carrier 

similarly asserted that the power draw 

of the inducer fan used to create the 

draft through the furnace is minimal 

compared to the energy of combustion. 

(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane 

asserted that the extra burden from 

retesting and certifying to a new metric 

is not worth adding electrical 

consumption into a new efficiency 

metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 

9 at p. 4) AHRI and Carrier noted that 

CWAFs are often sold as part of a 

packaged unit (i.e., within a CUAC), and 

that the blower and fans are included in 

the performance measurement of the 

CUAC. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Carrier No. 

4 at p. 3) AHRI also noted that the total 

air-conditioning hours are far greater 

than the total heating hours. (AHRI, No. 

7 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) 

DOE agrees with stakeholders that 

CWAFs are typically installed within a 

CUAC, and that the energy consumption 

of the supply air fan is captured in the 

current CUAC test procedure. DOE 

notes that the energy consumption of 

the supply air fan during furnace-only 

operation is not captured within the 

CUAC test procedure; however, DOE 

has tentatively determined that such 

energy consumption would be better 

addressed in a future amendment to the 

CUAC test procedure, rather than also 

integrating supply fan consumption into 

the CWAF test procedure. This 

approach would allow for the supply air 

fan’s energy consumption to be captured 

in a single test procedure. Similarly, 

DOE notes that many of the components 

that were referenced by NEEA are 

related to CUAC performance. As such, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these components would be better 

addressed a future CUAC test procedure 

amendment. Therefore, DOE has 

tentatively determined not to include 

supply fan energy consumption in the 

CWAF metric. 

DOE also considered whether to 

include the electrical energy 

consumption of other auxiliary 

components of CWAFs within the DOE 

test procedure. In a final rule published 

on May 4, 2016, amending the energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs, DOE 

analyzed the auxiliary energy 

consumption of CWAFs, finding that on 

average, auxiliary power consumption 

for the draft inducer was 100 W for gasfired CWAFs and 220 W for oil-fired 

CWAFs. (See section 7B.3 of the Final 

Rule TSD, EERE–2013–BT–STD–0021– 

0050.) DOE also estimated the power 

consumption of other auxiliary 

components (e.g., 25 W for spark 

ignition). Id. This auxiliary power 

consumption, as compared to the fossil 

fuel energy input rate, represents a 

fraction of a percent of the total energy 

consumption of a CWAF. As such, 

improvements in electrical power 

consumption, if integrated into TE, 

would have a negligible impact on the 

measured energy efficiency of a CWAF. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

incorporating electrical consumption 

into the measurement of CWAF 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10740 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

26 In the May 2020 RFI, DOE stated that DOE 

found that placing more than four thermocouples 

for that particular test unit was not practical due to 

space limitations. 85 FR 26626, 26632. However, 

this was a typographical error; DOE intended to 

state that placing nine thermocouples (not more 

than four) was not practical in this instance due to 

space limitations. 

efficiency would not substantially 

improve the representativeness of the 

test procedure and would increase 

testing burden. DOE also notes that 

including electrical consumption in the 

determination of CWAF efficiency 

would be a significant deviation from 

how CWAF efficiency is currently 

measured, for which DOE must 

demonstrate ‘‘clear and convincing 

evidence’’ that such change would more 

fully comply with the requirements of 

EPCA. Because DOE has tentatively 

concluded it is unlikely that inclusion 

of electrical energy in the TE metric 

would impact the thermal efficiency 

rating, DOE tentatively concludes that 

such a change would not meet the clear 

and convincing threshold established by 

DOE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to 

update the CWAF test procedure to 

include electrical consumption. 

E. Other Test Procedure Updates and 

Clarifications 

1. Flue Temperature Measurement in 

Models With Multiple Vent Hoods 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

neither the DOE test procedure nor the 

ANSI Z21.47 test procedure specifies 

how to perform the flue temperature 

measurement if a unit has multiple vent 

hoods, and that models are currently 

available on the market with multiple 

vent hoods. 85 FR 26626, 26631. DOE 

notes that in this NOPR, as in the May 

2020 RFI, DOE’s references to a ‘‘vent 

hood’’ are synonymous with a ‘‘vent 

pipe.’’ 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on how CWAFs with more 

than one vent hood are currently tested 

and whether it should consider adding 

provisions in the DOE test procedures to 

address measuring the flue gas 

temperature of a unit with multiple vent 

hoods. DOE also asked how best to 

measure flue gas temperature in such 

units. Id. 

AHRI stated that the manufacturers’ 

installation instructions should include 

information regarding the use of 

multiple vents and each vent’s 

functionality. AHRI stated that if the 

vent hood modules are the same size, 

the results are averaged; however, if 

they are different sizes, the test results 

for each vent hood should be adjusted 

accordingly before averaging the results. 

AHRI stated that, for example, if one 

vent is intended to exhaust two-thirds of 

the flue product and the second is 

intended to exhaust the remaining onethird, then this should be specified in 

the installation instructions, and a 

weighted average used to determine the 

flue gas temperature. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 

5) 

Trane stated that DOE should use the 

instructions in both the installation 

operation manuals as well as the 

supplemental testing instruction (‘‘STI’’) 

supplied when a model is certified to 

DOE for determining how to measure 

flue gas for models with multiple vent 

hoods. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) 

Carrier stated that the procedure it 

uses for models with multiple vent 

hoods is to analyze combustion 

products and measure flue temperature 

separately in each vent hood, and then 

use the averaged data of all vents to 

calculate TE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2) 

DOE tentatively agrees that results 

should be measured in each vent hood 

and weighted proportionally to the size 

of each vent hood when calculating TE. 

For units with multiple vent hoods of 

the same size, this approach would 

result in the measurements being 

averaged. Therefore, in order to ensure 

consistency between tests, DOE is 

proposing to add instructions to clarify 

the test method for models with 

multiple vent hoods. DOE proposes that 

measurements used to calculate TE (e.g., 

flue gas temperature, CO2 in flue 

gasses), be made separately for each 

vent hood, and that they are weighted 

proportionally to the size of each vent 

hood when calculating flue loss. 

Further, DOE proposes that test 

requirements, such as determining 

when equilibrium conditions occur 

based on the flue gas temperature, are 

determined based these weighted 

measurements. This proposal is 

predicated on the assumption that the 

amount (i.e., mass flow) of flue exhaust 

exiting each vent hood is proportional 

to the hood size. DOE recognizes that 

vent hood ‘‘size’’ may be measured in 

various ways, and therefore is proposing 

to specify that vent hoods size would be 

determined by calculating the outlet 

face area of the vent hood. As noted, 

DOE is proposing this additional 

procedure for clarification and to 

improve test repeatability, as ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 does not address flue 

temperature measurements in CWAFs 

with multiple vent hoods. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

provide instructions in the DOE test 

procedure for testing units with 

multiple vent hoods. 

DOE seeks comment on its 

assumption that the amount (i.e., mass 

flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent 

hood is proportional to the size of the 

vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks 

comment on its proposal to compare 

vent hood outlet face areas to determine 

vent hood size. 

2. Flue Temperature Measurement in 

Models With Vent Space Limitations 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

Section 2.16 of ANSI Z21.47–2012 and 

Section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47–2016 both 

specify measuring the flue gas 

temperature in the vent pipe using nine 

individual thermocouples placed in 

specific locations; however, these 

sections do not provide guidance on 

how to measure the flue gas temperature 

if the vent size constrains the space 

where the thermocouples are to be 

placed to the point that normal 

operation of the unit is inhibited when 

nine thermocouples are installed. 85 FR 

26626, 26631–26632. DOE notes this is 

also true of Section 5.16 in ANSI 

Z21.47–2021. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE 

noted that a vent may be so small (if, for 

example, a unit has multiple vents) that 

it is not practical to measure the flue gas 

temperature using nine thermocouples. 

DOE also explained that during testing 

of one unit with a particularly small 

vent hood, DOE found that placing 

nine 26 thermocouples was not practical 

due to space limitations. 81 FR 26626, 

26631–26632. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment on how CWAFs with vent size 

constraints are currently tested and 

whether DOE should consider adding 

provisions in the DOE test procedure to 

address measuring the flue gas 

temperature when space limitations 

preclude the use of nine thermocouples. 

DOE also asked how best to measure 

flue gas temperature in such units. 81 

FR 26626, 26632. 

AHRI stated that the manufacturer’s 

test instructions may specify that the 

number of thermocouples be limited 

due to space constraints within the draft 

hood. In such instances, the testing 

laboratory will follow the 

manufacturer’s test instructions for setup. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane stated 

that it believes the manufacturer will 

communicate how measurements were 

performed either in the STI or 

installation manual to achieve the 

performance metric rating that is 

certified, and that DOE should follow 

those instructions. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) 

Carrier acknowledged that, at times, it is 

impossible to fit nine thermocouples 

adequately in a smaller vent and stated 

that it uses the procedure from ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 103, which specifies the 

number of thermocouples depending on 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10741 

27Carrier did not provide a specific value for the 

tolerance it uses for CWAF testing. 

28 DOE understands commenters to have intended 

to reference section 5.5.4 as there is no section 5.4.4 

in ANSI Z21.47–2016. 

29Heating value for natural gas or propane must 

be 970–1100 Btu/ft3 or 2466–2542 Btu/ft3, 

respectively. Specific gravity for natural gas or 

propane must be 0.57–0.70 or 1.522–15.74, 

respectively. Ultimate carbon dioxide for natural 

gas or propane must be 11.7–12.2% or 13.73– 

13.82%, respectively. 

the diameter of the vent. Carrier further 

stated that ANSI/ASHRAE 103 requires 

five thermocouples for vents 2 inches in 

diameter and smaller, nine 

thermocouples for vents greater than 2 

inches in diameter, and 17 

thermocouples for a stack measurement. 

(Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2) 

In order to ensure consistency and 

repeatability in the application of the 

test method for models with small vent 

hoods, DOE recognizes the need to 

specify how to perform the DOE test 

procedure when nine thermocouples do 

not fit inside the vent hood. Although 

AHRI and Trane suggest allowing the 

manufacturer to specify how the 

thermocouples should be installed, this 

could lead to inconsistent test set-up 

and results for models with small vents 

if manufacturers choose different 

approaches for testing. Therefore, DOE 

is proposing to align its test procedure 

with ASHRAE 103–2017. More 

specifically, DOE is proposing to specify 

in the DOE test procedure that when 

testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the 

flue gas temperatures shall be measured 

in the vent hood using nine individual 

thermocouples when the vent hood is 

larger than 2 inches in diameter and 

may optionally be measured using five 

individual thermocouples when the 

vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in 

diameter. 

DOE seeks comment on the proposal 

to specify in the DOE test procedure that 

when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, 

the flue gas temperatures shall be 

measured in the vent hood using nine 

individual thermocouples, or if the vent 

hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter, 

five thermocouples may optionally be 

used. 

3. Input Rate Tolerance 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that 

its test procedure for gas-fired CWAFs 

references the test method in ANSI 

Z21.47, and that the thermal efficiency 

test in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47 

requires that the test be conducted at 

normal inlet pressure and at 100 percent 

of normal input rate (i.e., the maximum 

hourly Btu input rating specified by the 

manufacturer). 10 CFR 431.76(c)(1). 

DOE noted that no tolerance is provided 

on the input rate in section 2.39, so 

when taken literally, this provision 

could be interpreted to require that the 

firing rate be exactly 100 percent of the 

nominal input rate. DOE further noted 

that other types of fossil-fuel-fired 

equipment such as commercial 

packaged boilers, commercial water 

heaters, residential water heaters, 

residential furnaces, and residential 

boilers require the input rate during 

testing to be within ±2 percent of the 

nameplate input rate. 85 FR 26626, 

26631. 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for 

comment on whether industry uses a 

tolerance when testing to ANSI Z21.47, 

and if so, what tolerance is used. DOE 

also asked whether a tolerance should 

be specified for the input rate during 

testing of gas-fired CWAFs, and if so, 

what tolerance would be appropriate. 

Id. 

Carrier stated that it uses a minor 

plus-and-minus tolerance on input rate 

and that it understands that this 

approach is not included in ANSI 

Z21.47, but it has been used on furnace 

testing at Carrier for many years.27 (No. 

4 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI both 

commented that section 5.4.4 28 of ANSI 

Z21.47–2016 includes a ±2 percent 

tolerance on input rate. (AHRI, No. 7 at 

p. 5; Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) The CA IOUs 

recommend including a tolerance of ±2 

percent of rated input for gas-fired 

CWAFs, consistent with the commercial 

boiler test methods described in AHRI 

1500–2015. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4.) 

DOE notes that Sections 5.5.4 of ANSI 

Z21.47–2016 and 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47– 

2021 both specify a ±2 percent tolerance 

on the manufacturer’s specified hourly 

Btu input rating, and that the same ±2 

percent input rate tolerance is also 

specified in Section 2.5.4 of ANSI 

Z21.47–2012, which is currently 

incorporated by reference in the current 

DOE test procedure. As discussed in 

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

proposing to reference the Sections of 

ANSI Z21.47–2021 that correspond to 

the sections in ANSI Z21.47–2012 that 

are currently referenced, including 

Section 5.5 of ANSI Z21.47–2021. This 

proposal, therefore, incorporates Section 

5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47–2021, which 

includes the ±2 percent tolerance on the 

manufacturer’s specified hourly Btu 

input rating. 

4. Flue Loss Determination 

Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47–2012 

and Section 5.40 ANSI Z21.47–2021 

reference Annex I for the determination 

of flue loss that is used in the TE 

calculation. Annex I includes two 

methods for determining flue loss—one 

method that uses a calculation, and one 

method that uses nomographs shown in 

Figures I.1 and I.2 of ANSI Z21.47– 

2021. The nomograph method may only 

be used when the heating value, specific 

gravity, and flue gas CO2 of a CWAF fall 

within a specified range.29 If these 

conditions are met, either calculation 

method may be used. DOE notes that the 

option to use either method may result 

in issues with repeatability if the 

determination of flue loss varies when 

using each method. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing in section 4 of appendix A 

(formerly 10 CFR 431.76(e)) that the 

calculation method must be used when 

determining flue loss. DOE is proposing 

use of the calculation method rather 

than the nomograph method because the 

nomograph method is not applicable for 

all tests, and the calculation method is 

likely to provide better repeatability by 

eliminating subjective differences in 

interpreting the nomograph. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to 

require the calculation method specified 

in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47–2021 be 

used when determining flue loss, and 

not the nomograph method. 

F. Test Procedure Costs, Harmonization, 

and Other Topics 

1. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for CWAF for 

determining TE by incorporating by 

reference the most up-to-date versions 

of the industry standards currently 

referenced in the DOE test procedure, 

and by providing additional detail for 

the test setup for models with multiple 

vent hoods and models with vent hoods 

having space limitations. DOE has 

tentatively determined that these 

proposed amendments for determining 

TE would not be unduly burdensome 

for manufacturers to conduct, and that 

the proposed test procedures for this 

equipment are consistent with the 

industry test procedure updates. DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

proposed amendments to the test 

procedure for determining TE would 

improve the representativeness, 

accuracy, and reproducibility of the test 

results and would not be unduly 

burdensome for manufacturers to 

conduct. DOE expects that the proposed 

test procedure in appendix A for 

measuring and TE would not increase 

testing costs. 

DOE also is proposing to establish a 

new TE2 metric and establish a new 

appendix B, which would include the 

test procedure for determining TE2. 

DOE estimates that the additional test 

cost due to the additional part-load test 

and jacket loss test required for the TE2 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10742 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

30Per the sampling requirements specified at 10 

CFR 429.11(b), manufacturers are required to test at 

least two units to determine the rating for a basic 

model, except if only one unit of the basic model 

is produced. 

31 DOE’s estimated initial cost to develop and 

validate an AEDM includes (1) 80 hours to develop 

the AEDM based on existing simulation tools; (2) 

an additional 16 hours to validate the AEDM for 

two basic models at the cost of an engineering 

calibration technician wage of $46 per hour; and (3) 

the cost of third-party testing of two units per 

validation class (as required in 10 CFR 

429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per 

basic model cost to determine efficiency using an 

AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic model at the cost 

of an engineering calibration technician wage of $46 

per hour. 

metric would be $2,200, compared to 

the current DOE test procedure, which 

DOE estimates to be $4,200 at a thirdparty laboratory (i.e., a total estimated 

cost of $6,400 per tested unit for the 

amended TE2 test procedure). 

Therefore, assuming two units are tested 

per basic model,30 DOE estimates the 

testing cost associated with the newly 

proposed appendix B test procedure to 

be $12,800 per basic model. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 429.41, 

CWAF manufacturers may elect to use 

an alternative efficiency determination 

method (‘‘AEDM’’) to rate models for the 

TE2 metric, which significantly reduces 

testing costs to industry. DOE estimates 

the per-manufacturer cost to develop 

and validate an AEDM to determine TE2 

for CWAF equipment to be $17,300. 

DOE estimates a cost of $46 per basic 

model for determining energy efficiency 

using a validated AEDM.31

Additionally, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the proposed appendix 

B test procedure and TE2 calculation 

would alter the measured energy 

efficiency of a CWAF. 

As previously discussed, the 

proposed test procedure provisions 

regarding TE2 would not be mandatory 

unless and until compliance is required 

with amended energy conservation 

standards that rely on TE2. Because 

DOE is not referencing a prevailing 

industry test procedure for 

determination of TE2, DOE expects that 

the updated DOE test procedure in 

appendix B would increase the testing 

burden on CWAF manufacturers if use 

of appendix B were required in the 

future. However, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the test procedure 

amendments, if finalized, would not 

require manufacturers to redesign any of 

the covered equipment, would not 

require changes to how the equipment 

is manufactured, and would not impact 

the utility of the equipment. 

DOE seeks comment on its 

understanding of the impact of the test 

procedure proposals in this NOPR, 

specifically with respect to DOE’s 

estimated test costs, and DOE’s initial 

conclusion regarding the testing costs 

associated with the proposed test 

procedure for TE2 as compared to the 

current test procedure. 

2. Harmonization With Industry 

Standards 

DOE’s established practice is to adopt 

relevant industry standards as DOE test 

procedures unless such methodology 

would be unduly burdensome to 

conduct or would not produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, water use (as specified in 

EPCA) or estimated operating costs of 

that product during a representative 

average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 

8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C. In cases where the industry 

standard does not meet EPCA statutory 

criteria for test procedures, DOE will 

make appropriate modifications to the 

DOE test procedure through the 

rulemaking process. 

The current test procedures for CWAF 

at 10 CFR 431.76 incorporates by 

reference UL 727–2006 for testing oilfired CWAFs, HI BTS–2000 for 

performing fuel oil analysis and for 

calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs, 

ANSI Z21.47–2012 for testing gas-fired 

CWAFs, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2007 

for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 

As discussed, the proposed 

amendments to the DOE test procedure 

for determining TE would update the 

references to the incorporated industry 

testing standards. Also as discussed, 

DOE is proposing to adopt a new metric, 

TE2, for CWAFs. There is no industry 

testing standard that provides for 

determining TE2. However, the test 

procedure provisions that provide the 

measured inputs for determining TE2 

rely on the same industry testing 

standards DOE is proposing to reference 

for determining TE. 

DOE requests comments on the 

benefits and burdens of the proposed 

updates and additions to industry 

standards referenced in the test 

procedure for CWAFs. 

DOE recognizes that adopting 

industry standards with modifications 

imposes a burden on industry (i.e., 

manufacturers face increased costs if the 

DOE modifications require different 

testing equipment or facilities). DOE 

seeks comment on the degree to which 

the DOE test procedure should consider 

and be harmonized further with the 

most recent relevant industry standards 

for CWAFs, and whether there are any 

changes to the Federal test method that 

would provide additional benefits to the 

public. DOE also requests comment on 

the benefits and burdens of, or any other 

comments regarding adopting of, any 

industry/voluntary consensus-based or 

other appropriate test procedure, 

without modification. 

G. Compliance Date 

EPCA prescribes that if DOE amends 

a test procedure, all representations of 

energy efficiency and energy use, 

including those made on marketing 

materials and product labels, must be 

made in accordance with an amended 

test procedure, beginning 360 days after 

publication of such a test procedure 

final rule in the Federal Register. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) 

To the extent the modified test 

procedure proposed in this document is 

required only for the evaluation and 

issuance of updated efficiency 

standards, use of the modified test 

procedure, if finalized, would not be 

required until the compliance date of 

updated standards. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this test 

procedure rulemaking does not 

constitute a significant regulatory action 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

(‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under the Executive order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel. 

The following sections detail DOE’s 

IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10743 

32For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

33The size standards are listed by NAICS code 

and industry description and are available at: 

www.sba.gov/document/support—table-sizestandards (Last accessed July 16, 2021). 

34MAEDbS can be accessed at 

www.cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/ 

AdvancedSearch.aspx (Last accessed July 15, 2021). 

35ENERGY STAR-certified products can be found 

in the ENERGY STAR database accessed at 

www.energystar.gov/productfinder/product/ 

certified-commercial-water-heaters/results (Last 

accessed July 15, 2021). 

36Certified equipment in the CCD are listed by 

product class and can be accessed at 

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed July 15, 

2021). 

1. Description of Why Action Is Being 

Considered 

DOE is proposing to amend the 

existing DOE test procedures for CWAFs 

in satisfaction of the 7-year review 

requirement specified in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)). 

2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6317) Title III, Part C32 of EPCA, added 

by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 

441(a), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

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

6311–6317) This equipment includes 

CWAFs, the subject of this document. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) 

Further, if such an industry test 

procedure is amended, DOE must 

amend its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended industry 

test procedure, unless DOE determines, 

by rule published in the Federal 

Register and supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that such 

amended test procedure would not meet 

the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) 

and (3) related to representative use and 

test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

equipment, including CWAFs, to 

determine whether amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements for 

the test procedures to not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct and be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 63146314(a)(1)(A)) 

3. Description and Estimate of Small 

Entities Regulated 

For manufacturers of CWAFs, the 

Small Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) 

has set a size threshold, which defines 

those entities classified as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ for the purposes of the 

statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

See 13 CFR part 121. The equipment 

covered by this rule are classified under 

North American Industry Classification 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415,33 ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the 

SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees 

or fewer for an entity to be considered 

as a small business for this category. 

DOE reviewed the test procedures 

proposed in this NOPR under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 

published on February 19, 2003. DOE’s 

analysis relied on publicly available 

databases to identify potential small 

businesses that manufacture equipment 

covered in this rulemaking. DOE 

utilized the California Energy 

Commission’s Modernized Appliance 

Efficiency Database System 

(‘‘MAEDbS’’),34 EPA’s ENERGY STAR 

Database,35 and the DOE’s Certification 

Compliance Database (‘‘CCD’’) 36 to 

identify to manufacturers. DOE 

identified eight original equipment 

manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’) of CWAFs 

affected by this rulemaking. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. Of these eight OEMs, DOE 

identified one small, domestic OEM for 

consideration. DOE used subscriptionbased business information tools to 

determine headcount and revenue of the 

small business. 

4. Description and Estimate of 

Compliance Requirements 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend 

the existing test procedure for CWAFs 

when determining TE by incorporating 

by reference the most up-to-date 

versions of the industry standards 

currently referenced in the DOE test 

procedure, and to provide additional 

detail for the test setup for models with 

multiple vent hoods and models with 

vent hoods having space limitations. 

DOE proposes to update appendix A 

(formerly 10 CFR 431.76), ‘‘Uniform test 

method for the measurement of energy 

efficiency of commercial warm air 

furnaces’’ as follows: 

(1) Incorporate by reference UL 727– 

2018 (previously UL 727–2006) for 

testing oil-fired CWAFs; 

(2) Incorporate by reference AHRI 

1500–2015 (previously HI BTS–2000) 

for performing fuel oil analysis and for 

calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs; 

(3) Incorporate by reference ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47– 

2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs; 

(4) Incorporate by reference ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 103–2017 (previously ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 103–2007) for testing 

condensing gas-fired CWAFs; 

(5) Incorporate by reference the 

standards referenced in UL 727–2018 

(i.e., NFPA 97–2003), AHRI 1500–2015 

(i.e., ASTM D396–14a, ASTM D240–09, 

ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291– 

10), and ANSI Z21.47–2021 (i.e., ANSI/ 

ASME PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004)) that are 

necessary in performing the DOE test 

procedure; 

(6) Clarify how to test units with 

multiple vent hoods, and units with 

vent hoods that are 2 inches in diameter 

or smaller; and 

DOE also proposes to establish a new 

test procedure and metric for ‘‘TE2’’ in 

a new appendix B to 10 CFR 431.72, 

which manufacturers could use to make 

voluntary representations, and which 

would be mandatory only at such time 

as compliance is required with amended 

energy conservation standards based on 

TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. 

The proposed new TE2 metric accounts 

for flue losses in a manner identical to 

the existing TE metric, and accounts for 

jacket losses and part-load operation. 

Items (1) through (5) incorporate by 

reference the most up-to-date versions 

of the industry standards currently 

referenced in the DOE test procedure. 

Item (6) includes clarifications intended 

to improve consistency and 

reproducibility of test procedure results. 

The industry test procedure ANSI 

Z21.47 does not specify how to test 

units with multiple vent hoods or units 

with vent hoods that are too small to fit 

the required number of thermocouples. 

DOE is proposing to add clarifications 

and guidance to address these scenarios. 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these proposed amendments in this 

NOPR would improve the 

representativeness, accuracy, and 

reproducibility of the test results and 

would not increase third-party 

laboratory testing costs. 

In item (7), DOE proposes to adopt 

appendix B, which includes the relevant 

test procedure requirements for 

measuring TE2, an efficiency metric 

proposed by DOE which incorporates 

jacket loss and CWAF performance at 

reduced firing rates. The proposed 

NOPR amendments would not require 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10744 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

37The cost to test one unit is $6,400. The cost to 

test two units is $12,800. 

38 In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70. 

manufacturers to re-rate models, as DOE 

energy conservation standards do not 

currently require TE2 ratings. As such, 

the test procedure amendments do not 

result in industry costs. 

Should DOE adopt energy 

conservation standards based on the 

TE2 metric in proposed appendix B in 

the future, DOE anticipates 

manufacturers would incur costs to rerate models as result of the standards. 

DOE expects the proposed test 

procedure in appendix B for measuring 

TE2 would increase testing costs 

compared to the current DOE test 

procedure. The current DOE test 

procedure costs approximately $4,200 

per unit for third-party laboratory 

testing. DOE estimates the cost for thirdparty laboratory testing according to the 

proposed appendix B to be $6,400 per 

unit. 

If CWAF manufacturers conduct 

testing to certify a basic model, two 

units are required to be tested per basic 

model. The test cost, according to the 

proposed amendments, would be 

$12,800 per basic model.37 However, 

manufacturers are not required to 

perform laboratory testing on all basic 

models, as CWAF manufacturers may 

elect to use AEDMs.38 An AEDM is a 

computer modeling or mathematical 

tool that predicts the performance of 

non-tested basic models. These 

computer modeling and mathematical 

tools, when properly developed, can 

provide a means to predict the energy 

usage or efficiency characteristics of a 

basic model of a given covered product 

or equipment and reduce the burden 

and cost associated with testing. DOE 

estimates the cost to develop and 

validate an AEDM for CWAFs to be 

$17,300, which includes testing of two 

models per validation class. 

Additionally, DOE estimates a cost of 

approximately $46 per basic model for 

determining energy efficiency using the 

validated AEDM. 

DOE estimates the range of potential 

costs for the one domestic, small OEM. 

When developing cost estimates for the 

small OEM, DOE considers the cost to 

develop the AEDM simulation tool, the 

costs to validate the AEDM through 

testing, and the cost to rate basic models 

using the AEDM. 

DOE research indicates that the one 

small manufacturer has average annual 

revenues of $3.3 million. DOE 

understands this OEM to manufacture 

four basic models. Therefore, DOE 

estimates that the associated re-rating 

costs for this manufacturer to be 

approximately $17,400 when making 

use of AEDMs. The cost for this small 

manufacturer to re-rate all basic models 

is estimated to be less than 1 percent of 

annual revenue. 

DOE requests comment on the 

number of small OEMs DOE identified. 

DOE also seeks comment on the 

potential costs this small manufacturer 

may incur. 

5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict 

With Other Rules and Regulations 

DOE is not aware of any rules or 

regulations that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with the rule being considered 

today. 

6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

DOE proposes to reduce burden on 

manufacturers, including small 

businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu 

of physically testing all basic models. 

The use of an AEDM is less costly than 

physical testing of CWAF models. 

Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost 

to physically test all CWAF basic 

models for the identified small 

manufacturer to be approximately 

$51,200. 

Additional compliance flexibilities 

may be available through other means. 

EPCA provides that a manufacturer 

whose annual gross revenue from all of 

its operations does not exceed $8 

million may apply for an exemption 

from all or part of an energy 

conservation standard for a period not 

longer than 24 months after the effective 

date of a final rule establishing the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) 

Additionally, manufacturers subject to 

DOE’s energy efficiency standards may 

apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and 

Appeals for exception relief under 

certain circumstances. Manufacturers 

should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 

details. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of CWAFs must certify 

to DOE that their products comply with 

any applicable energy conservation 

standards. To certify compliance, 

manufacturers must first obtain test data 

for their products according to the DOE 

test procedures, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including 

CWAFs. (See generally 10 CFR part 

429.) The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes test 

procedure amendments that it expects 

will be used to develop and implement 

future energy conservation standards for 

CWAFs. DOE has determined that this 

rule falls into a class of actions that are 

categorically excluded from review 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and DOE’s implementing 

regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. 

Specifically, DOE has determined that 

adopting test procedures for measuring 

energy efficiency of consumer products 

and industrial equipment is consistent 

with activities identified in 10 CFR part 

1021, appendix A to subpart D, A5 and 

A6. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

Executive order requires agencies to 

examine the constitutional and statutory 

authority supporting any action that 

would limit the policymaking discretion 

of the States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive order also requires agencies to 

have an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have Federalism 

implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 

published a statement of policy 

describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10745 

rule and has determined that it would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the products that are the subject of this 

proposed rule. States can petition DOE 

for exemption from such preemption to 

the extent, and based on criteria, set 

forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 4316(b); 42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 12988 specifically 

requires that Executive agencies make 

every reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation (1) clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to 

determine whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at 

https://energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed 

rule according to UMRA and its 

statement of policy and determined that 

the rule contains neither an 

intergovernmental mandate, nor a 

mandate that may result in the 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

any year, so these requirements do not 

apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed rule would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this proposed 

regulation would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final

%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines

%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 

reviewed this proposed rule under the 

OMB and DOE guidelines and has 

concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

proposed significant energy action. A 

‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as 

any action by an agency that 

promulgated or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

The proposed regulatory action to 

amend the test procedure for measuring 

the energy efficiency of CWAFs is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10746 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The proposed modifications to the 

test procedure for CWAF would 

incorporate testing methods contained 

in certain sections of the following 

commercial standards: UL 727–2018, 

AHRI 1500–2015 ANSI Z21.47–2021, 

and ANSI/ASHRAE 103–2017. DOE has 

evaluated these standards and is unable 

to conclude whether they fully comply 

with the requirements of section 32(b) of 

the FEAA (i.e., whether it was 

developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review). DOE will 

consult with both the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition, prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

M. Description of Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate by reference the following 

standards: 

(1) UL 727–2018. This test standard 

provides instruction for how to test oilfired CWAFs. 

Copies of UL 727–2018 can be 

obtained from Underwriters 

Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW. Lake Rd., 

Camas, WA 98607–8542, (360) 817– 

5500 or online at: 

standardscatalog.ul.com. 

(2) ANSI Z21.47–2021. This test 

standard provides instruction for how to 

test gas-fired CWAFs. 

(3) ASHRAE 103–2017. This test 

standard provides instruction for how to 

test residential furnaces and boilers, 

which DOE is referencing for the 

purpose of providing instruction for 

testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 

(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974 

(R2004). This standard is also 

referenced as ANSI Z21.47–2021, and it 

specifies thermocouple requirements for 

when testing gas-fired CWAFs. 

Copies of ANSI Z21.47–2021, ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 103–2017 and ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), can be obtained 

from 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New 

York, NY 10036, (212) 642–4900, or 

online at: webstore.ansi.org. 

(5) AHRI 1500–2015. This test 

standard provides instruction for how to 

test perform fuel oil analysis and for 

how to calculate flue loss of oil-fired 

CWAFs. 

Copies of AHRI 1500–2015 can be 

obtained from 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 

500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524– 

8800, or online at: ahrinet.org. 

(6) NFPA 97–2003. This standard is 

referenced in UL 727–2018, and it 

provides definitions for the terms 

combustible and noncombustible. 

Copies of NFPA 97–2003 can be 

obtained form 1 Batterymarch Park, 

Quincy, MA 02169–7471, (617) 770– 

3000 or by going online at: 

www.nfpa.org. 

(7) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17. 

This standard is referenced in UL 727– 

2018, and it specifies thermocouple 

requirements for when testing oil-fired 

CWAFs. 

(8) ASTM D396–14a. This standard is 

referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it 

contains general fuel oil requirements. 

(9) ASTM D240–09. This standard is 

referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it 

contains fuel oil heating value 

requirements. 

(10) ASTM D4809–09a. This standard 

is referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it 

contains fuel oil hydrogen and carbon 

content requirements. 

(11) ASTM D5291–10. This standard 

is referenced in AHRI 1500–2015, and it 

contains fuel oil density requirements. 

Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M– 

17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396–14a, 

ASTM D4809–09a, and ASTM D5291– 

10, can be obtained from 100 Barr 

Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909– 

2786 or by going online at: 

www.astm.org. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 

meeting are listed in the DATES section 

at the beginning of this document. If no 

participants register for the webinar, it 

will be cancelled. Webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s website: 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/

appliance_standards/standards.aspx?

productid=49&action=viewlive 

Participants are responsible for ensuring 

their systems are compatible with the 

webinar software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this proposed rule, 

or who is representative of a group or 

class of persons that has an interest in 

these issues, may request an 

opportunity to make an oral 

presentation at the webinar. Such 

persons may submit to Appliance

StandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons who wish to speak should 

include with their request a computer 

file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, 

PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that 

briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and the 

topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

Persons requesting to speak should 

briefly describe the nature of their 

interest in this rulemaking and provide 

a telephone number for contact. DOE 

requests persons selected to make an 

oral presentation to submit an advance 

copy of their statements at least two 

weeks before the webinar. At its 

discretion, DOE may permit persons 

who cannot supply an advance copy of 

their statement to participate, if those 

persons have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Office. As necessary, 

requests to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

rulemaking. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this rulemaking, allow 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10747 

time for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this rulemaking. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar will be 

included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this 

document. In addition, any person may 

buy a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Participation in the Webinar 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this 

document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment or in any documents 

attached to your comment. Any 

information that you do not want to be 

publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Persons viewing comments will see only 

first and last names, organization 

names, correspondence containing 

comments, and any documents 

submitted with the comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

website will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via email also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information on a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. No faxes 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. 

Provide documents that are not secured, 

written in English and free of any 

defects or viruses. Documents should 

not contain special characters or any 

form of encryption and, if possible, they 

should carry the electronic signature of 

the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. DOE 

will make its own determination about 

the confidential status of the 

information and treat it according to its 

determination. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE seeks comment on its 

tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is 

an outdated standard that has been 

superseded by NFPA 97–2003. DOE 

seeks comment on its proposal to 

incorporate by reference NFPA 97–2003 

in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D. 

(2) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to adopt the optional method 

specified in AHRI 1500–2015 that 

allows for calculating CO2 using a 

measured O2 value. DOE also seeks 

comment on its proposal to 

establishestablish section 3 of appendix 

A (i.e., an update of 10 CFR 431.76(d) 

of the current DOE test procedure) to 

accommodate the option to calculate 

CO2 using a measured O2 value. 

(3) DOE seeks comment on whether 

the option provided in Section 5.4a of 

ANSI Z21.47–2021 to use test gas H 

when performing the three burner 

characteristics tests would impact the 

representativeness or burden of the 

thermal efficiency test. 

(4) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to establish a new test 

procedure (i.e., appendix B) and metric 

(i.e., TE2) for CWAFs, which would 

generally adopt the same changes 

proposed for the current test procedure 

at appendix A and account for flue 

losses in the same manner as the current 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10748 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

TE metric, but would additionally 

account for jacket losses and part load 

operation. 

(5) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to require jacket loss be 

measured when testing CWAFs 

designed for outdoor installation and 

designed for indoor installation within 

an unheated space when determining 

TE2 pursuant to newly proposed 

appendix B, and on its proposed 

method for measuring jacket loss. DOE 

also seeks comment on its proposal that 

jacket loss for CWAFs intended for 

indoor installation within a heated 

space would be assumed to be zero, and 

on its proposed jacket loss factors for 

CWAFs designed for outdoor 

installation and designed for indoor 

installation within an unheated space. 

(6) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to add a part-load test 

procedure to be incorporated into the 

newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also 

seeks comment on its proposal to 

calculate TE2 by averaging performance 

at the maximum and minimum fire rate 

and seeks and any related data. DOE 

also requests comment on alternate 

weighting values, including those 

discussed, that may be more nationally 

representative of an average use, along 

with any relevant data. 

(7) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to provide instructions in the 

DOE test procedure for testing units 

with multiple vent hoods. 

(8) DOE seeks comment on its 

assumption that the amount (i.e., mass 

flow) of flue exhaust exiting each vent 

hood is proportional to the size of the 

vent hood. Furthermore, DOE seeks 

comment on its proposal to compare 

vent hood outlet face areas to determine 

vent hood size. 

(9) DOE seeks comment on the 

proposal to specify in the DOE test 

procedure that when testing gas- and 

oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas 

temperatures shall be measured in the 

vent hood using nine individual 

thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 

inches or smaller in diameter, five 

thermocouples may optionally be used. 

(10) DOE seeks comment on its 

proposal to require the calculation 

method specified in Annex I of ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 be used when determining 

flue loss, and not the nomograph 

method. 

(11) DOE seeks comment on its 

understanding of the impact of the test 

procedure proposals in this NOPR, 

specifically with respect to DOE’s 

estimated test costs, and DOE’s initial 

conclusion regarding the testing costs 

associated with the proposed test 

procedure for TE2 as compared to the 

current test procedure. 

(12) DOE requests comment on the 

number of small OEMs DOE identified. 

DOE also seeks comment on the 

potential costs this small manufacturer 

may incur. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation test 

procedures, Incorporation by reference, 

and Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on February 11, 

2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on February 14, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 

10 CFR part 431 as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Amend § 431.72 by adding, in 

alphabetical order, a definition for 

‘‘Thermal efficiency two’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.72 Definitions concerning 

commercial warm air furnaces. 

* * * * * 

Thermal efficiency two for a 

commercial warm air furnace equals 100 

percent minus percent flue loss and 

jacket loss. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Revise § 431.75 to read as follows: 

§ 431.75 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

Certain material is incorporated by 

reference into this subpart with the 

approval of the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce 

any edition other than that specified in 

this section, DOE must publish a 

document in the Federal Register and 

the material must be available to the 

public. All approved material is 

available for inspection at DOE, and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). Contact DOE at 

the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, 

Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https://

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

building-technologies-office. For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@

nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. It 

may be obtained from the following 

sources: 

(a) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, or go to: 

www.ahrinet.org. 

(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500–2015 (‘‘AHRI 

1500–2015’’), ‘‘Performance Rating of 

Commercial Space Heating Boilers’’, 

approved November 28, 2014; IBR 

approved for appendices A and B to this 

subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(b) ANSI. American National 

Standards Institute. 25 W 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036. (212) 

642–4900 or go to www.ansi.org. 

(1) ANSI Z21.47–2021,‘‘Gas-fired 

Central Furnaces’’, approved April 21, 

2021; IBR approved for appendices A 

and B to this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie 

Circle NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 

636–8400, or go to: www.ashrae.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103– 

2017 (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2017’’), ‘‘Method 

of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 

Furnaces and Boilers’’, approved June 

30, 2017; IBR approved for appendices 

A and B to this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10749 

(d) ASME. American Society of 

Mechanical Engineers, Service Center, 

22 Law Drive, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, 

NJ 07007, (973) 882–1170, or go to 

www.asme.org. 

(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3–1974 

(R2004) (‘‘ASME PTC 19.3–1974 

(R2004)’’), ‘‘Part 3: Temperature 

Measurement, Instruments and 

Apparatus’’, published January 1, 2004; 

IBR approved for appendices A and B to 

this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(e) ASTM. ASTM International, 100 

Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909– 

2786, or go to www.astm.org/. 

(1) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M–17 

(‘‘ASTM E230/E230M–17’’), ‘‘Standard 

Specification for TemperatureElectromotive Force (emf) Tables for 

Standardized Thermocouples’’, 

approved November 1, 2017, IBR 

approved for appendices A and B to this 

subpart. 

(2) ASTM D240–09, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Heat of Combustion of 

Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 

Calorimeter’’, approved July 1, 2009; 

IBR approved for appendices A and B to 

this subpart. 

(3) ASTM D396–14a, ‘‘Standard 

Specification for Fuel Oils,’’ approved 

on October 1, 2014; IBR approved for 

appendices A and B to this subpart. 

(4) ASTM D4809–09a, ‘‘Standard Test 

Method for Heat of Combustion of 

Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb 

Calorimeter (Precision Method)’’; IBR 

approved for appendices A and B to this 

subpart. 

(5) ASTM D5291–10, ‘‘Standard Test 

Methods for Instrumental Determination 

of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in 

Petroleum Products and Lubricants’’, 

approved on May 1, 2010; IBR approved 

for appendices A and B to this subpart. 

(f) NFPA. National Fire Protection 

Association, 11 Tracy Drive, Avon, MA 

02322, 1–800–344–3555, or go to 

www.nfpa.org. 

(1) NFPA 97–2003, ‘‘Standard 

Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, 

Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances’’; 

IBR approved for appendices A and B to 

this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(g) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, 

Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 

60062, (847) 272–8800, or go to: 

www.ul.com. 

(1) UL 727 (‘‘UL 727–2018’’), 

‘‘Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central 

Furnaces’’, Tenth Edition, published 

January 31, 2018; IBR approved for 

appendices A and B to this subpart. 

(2) [Reserved] 

■ 4. Revise § 431.76 to read as follows: 

§ 431.76 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial warm air furnaces. 

(a) Scope. This section prescribes the 

test requirements used to measure the 

energy efficiency of commercial warm 

air furnaces with a rated maximum 

input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more. 

(b) Testing and calculations. (1) 

Thermal efficiency. Test in accordance 

with appendix A to subpart D of this 

part when making representations of 

thermal efficiency. 

(2) Thermal efficiency two. Test in 

accordance with appendix B to subpart 

D of this part when making 

representations of thermal efficiency 

two. 

■ 5. Add appendix A to subpart D of 

part 431 to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431— 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement Energy Efficiency of 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 

(Thermal Efficiency) 

Note: On and after [date 360 days following 

publication of a final rule], any 

representations made with respect to the 

energy use or efficiency of commercial warm 

air furnaces must be made in accordance 

with the results of testing pursuant to this 

section. At that time, manufacturers must use 

the relevant procedures specified in this 

appendix, which reference ANSI Z21.47– 

2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, UL 727–2018, or 

AHRI 1500–2015. On and after [effective date 

30 days following publication of a final rule] 

and prior to [date 360 days following 

publication of a final rule], manufacturers 

must test commercial warm air furnaces in 

accordance with this appendix or 10 CFR 

431.76 (revised as of January 1, 2020). DOE 

notes that, because testing under this section 

is required as of [date 360 days following 

publication of a final rule], manufacturers 

may wish to begin using this amended test 

procedure immediately. Any representations 

made with respect to the energy use or 

efficiency of such commercial warm air 

furnaces must be made in accordance with 

whichever version is selected. 

1. Incorporation by reference. DOE 

incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the 

entirety of standards AHRI 1500–2015, ANSI 

Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, ASME 

PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/ 

E230M–17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396– 

14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM D5291–10, 

NFPA 97–2003, and UL 727–2018. However, 

for standards ANSI Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 

103–2017, UL 727–2018, and AHRI 1500– 

2015, only the enumerated provisions of 

those documents apply to this appendix, as 

follows: 

1.1 ANSI Z21.47–2021 

1.1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 

5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 as 

specified in section 2.1 of this appendix; 

1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 

2.1 and 3.1 of this appendix; 1.1.3 Section 

5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of this 

appendix; 

1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4.1 

of this appendix. 

1.2 ASHRAE 103–2017 

1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section 

3.2 of this appendix; 

1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103–2017 as 

specified in section 2.3.1 of this appendix. 

1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section 

5.1 of this appendix. 

1.3 UL 727–2018 

1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 

40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727– 

2018 as specified in section 2.2 of this 

appendix; 

1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018 as 

specified in section 3.1 of this appendix. 

1.4 AHRI 1500–2015 

1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500–2015 

as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix; 

1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of 

the AHRI 1500–2015of section 4.2 of this 

appendix. 

2. Test set-up and Testing. Where this 

section prescribes use of ANSI Z21.47–2021 

or UL 727–2018, perform only the procedures 

pertinent to the measurement of the steadystate efficiency, as specified in this section. 

2.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. The test set-up, including flue 

requirement, instrumentation, test 

conditions, and measurements for 

determining thermal efficiency are as 

specified in section 2.3 of this appendix, and 

the following sections of ANSI Z21.47–2021: 

5.1 (General, including ASME PTC 19.3–1974 

(R2004) as referenced in Section 5.1.4), 5.2 

(Basic test arrangements), 5.3 (Test ducts and 

plenums), 5.4 (Test gases), 5.5 (Test pressures 

and burner adjustments), 5.6 (Static pressure 

and air flow adjustments), 5.40 (Thermal 

efficiency), and 7.2.1 (Basic test arrangements 

for direct vent central furnaces). If section 2.3 

of this appendix and ANSI Z21.47–2021 have 

conflicting provisions (e.g., the number of 

thermocouples that should be used when 

testing units with vent hoods two inches in 

diameters or smaller), follow the provisions 

in section 2.3. The thermal efficiency test 

must be conducted only at the normal inlet 

test pressure, as specified in Section 5.5.1 of 

ANSI Z21.47–2021, and at the maximum 

hourly Btu input rating specified by the 

manufacturer for the product being tested. 

2.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. The test setup, including flue 

requirement, instrumentation, test 

conditions, and measurement for measuring 

thermal efficiency is as specified in section 

2.3 of this appendix and the following 

sections of UL 727–2018: 2 (Units of 

Measurement), 3 (Glossary, except that the 

definitions for combustible and noncombustible in Sections 3.11 and 3.27 shall 

be as referenced in NFPA 97–2003), 37 

(General), 38 and 39 (Test Installation), 40 

(Instrumentation, except 40.4 and 40.6.2 

through 40.6.7 which are not required for the 

thermal efficiency test, and including ASTM 

E230/E230M–17 as referenced in Sections 

40.6), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42 

(Combustion Test—Burner and Furnace), 

43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
10750 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Cutout Test), 45 (Continuity of Operation 

Test), and 46 (Air Flow, Downflow or 

Horizontal Furnace Test). If section 2.3 of 

this appendix and UL 727 have conflicting 

provisions (e.g., the number of 

thermocouples that should be used when 

testing units with vent hoods two inches in 

diameters or smaller), follow the provisions 

in section 2.3 of this appendix. Conduct a 

fuel oil analysis for heating value, hydrogen 

content, carbon content, pounds per gallon, 

and American Petroleum Institute (API) 

gravity as specified in Section C3.2.1.1 of 

AHRI 1500–2015, including the applicable 

provisions of ASTM D240–09, ASTM D4809– 

09a, ASTM D5291–10, and ASTM D396–14a, 

as referenced. The steady-state combustion 

conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of UL 

727–2018, are attained when variations of not 

more than 5 °F in the measured flue gas 

temperature occur for three consecutive 

readings taken 15 minutes apart. 

2.3 Additional test set up requirements 

for gas-fired and oil-fired commercial warm 

air furnaces 

2.3.1 Thermocouple setup for gas and oilfired commercial warm air furnaces with flue 

vents that are two inches in diameter or 

smaller. For units with vent hoods (i.e., flue 

outlet hoods) two inches in diameter or 

smaller, the flue gas temperatures may 

optionally be measured using five individual 

thermocouples, instead of nine 

thermocouples. 

2.3.2 Procedure for flue gas 

measurements when testing units with 

multiple vent hoods. For units that have 

multiple vent hoods record flue gas 

measurements (e.g., flue gas temperature, 

CO2 in the flue gasses) separately for each 

individual vent hood and calculate a 

weighted-average value based on the readings 

of all vent hoods. To determine the weighted 

average for each measurement, first calculate 

the face area of each vent hood. Then 

multiply the ratio of each individual vent 

hood’s face area to the total face area of all 

vent hoods (i.e., the face area of each 

individual vent hood divided by the total 

vent hood area) by that vent hood’s 

respective component measurement and the 

sum of all of the products for all of the vent 

hoods to determine the weighted-average 

values. Use the weighted-average values to 

determine flue loss, and whether equilibrium 

conditions are met before the official test 

period. 

3. Additional test measurements 

3.1 Determination of flue CO2 (carbon 

dioxide) or O2 (oxygen) for oil-fired 

commercial warm air furnaces. In addition to 

the flue temperature measurement specified 

in Section 40.6.8 of UL 727–2018, locate one 

or two sampling tubes within six inches 

downstream from the flue temperature probe 

(as indicated on Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018). 

If an open end tube is used, it must project 

into the flue one-third of the chimney 

connector diameter. If other methods of 

sampling the flue gas are used place the 

sampling tube so as to obtain an average 

sample. There must be no air leak between 

the temperature probe and the sampling tube 

location. Collect the flue gas sample at the 

same time the flue gas temperature is 

recorded. The CO2 or O2 concentration of the 

flue gas must be as specified by the 

manufacturer for the product being tested, 

with a tolerance of ±0.1 percent. Determine 

the flue CO2 or O2 using an instrument with 

a reading error no greater than ±0.1 percent. 

3.2 Procedure for the measurement of 

condensate for a gas-fired condensing 

commercial warm air furnace. The test 

procedure for the measurement of the 

condensate from the flue gas under steadystate operation must be conducted as 

specified in Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017 under the maximum 

rated input conditions. This condensate 

measurement must be conducted for an 

additional 30 minutes of steady-state 

operation after completion of the steady-state 

thermal efficiency test specified in Section 

2.1 of this appendix. 

4. Calculation of thermal efficiency 

4.1 Gas-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. Use the calculation procedure 

specified in Section 5.40, Thermal efficiency, 

of ANSI Z21.47–2021. When determining the 

flue loss that is used in the calculation of 

thermal efficiency, the calculation method 

specified in Annex I shall be used. 

4.2 Oil-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. Calculate the percent flue loss (in 

percent of heat input rate) by following the 

procedure specified in Sections C7.2.4, 

C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500–2015. 

The thermal efficiency must be calculated as: 

Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent ¥ 

flue loss (in percent). 

5. Procedure for the calculation of the 

additional heat gain and heat loss, and 

adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a 

condensing commercial warm air furnace. 

5.1 Calculate the latent heat gain from the 

condensation of the water vapor in the flue 

gas, and calculate heat loss due to the flue 

condensate down the drain, as specified in 

Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 

103–2017, with the exception that in the 

equation for the heat loss due to hot 

condensate flowing down the drain in 

Section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor 

temperature of 70 °F and the temperature 

term TOA must be replaced by the measured 

room temperature as specified in Section 

5.2.8 of ANSI Z21.47–2021. 

5.2 Adjustment to the thermal efficiency 

for condensing furnaces. Adjust the thermal 

efficiency as calculated in section 4.1 of this 

appendix by adding the latent gain, 

expressed in percent, from the condensation 

of the water vapor in the flue gas, and 

subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue 

condensate down the drain), also expressed 

in percent, both as calculated in section 5.1 

of this appendix, to obtain the thermal 

efficiency of a condensing furnace. 

■ 6. Add appendix B to subpart D of 

part 431 to read as follows: 

Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431– 

Uniform Test Method for the 

Measurement Energy Efficiency of 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 

(Thermal Efficiency Two) 

Note: Representations with respect to 

energy use or efficiency of this equipment, 

including compliance certifications, must be 

made in terms of thermal efficiency (TE), as 

determined by the test procedure specified in 

appendix A to this subpart. In addition, 

manufacturers may optionally make 

representations of energy use or efficiency of 

this equipment using thermal efficiency 2 

(TE2) as determined using this appendix [on 

or after effective date 30 days after 

publication of final rule]. 

1. Incorporation by Reference. DOE 

incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the 

entirety of standards AHRI 1500–2015, ANSI 

Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 103–2017, ASME 

PTC 19.3–1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/ 

E230M–17, ASTM D240–09, ASTM D396– 

14a, ASTM D4809–09a, ASTM D5291–10, 

NFPA 97–2003, and UL 727–2018. However, 

for standards ANSI Z21.47–2021, ASHRAE 

103–2017, UL 727–2018, and AHRI 1500– 

2015, only the enumerated provisions of 

those documents apply to this appendix, as 

follows: 

1.1 ANSI Z21.47–2021 

1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 

5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47–2021 as 

specified in section 2.1 of appendix A to this 

subpart; 

1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 

2.1 and 3.1 of appendix A to this subpart; 

1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 

5.1 of appendix A to this subpart; 

1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4 of 

appendix A to this subpart; 

1.1.5 Annex J as specified in sections 2.2 

and 2.6 of this appendix. 

1.2 ASHRAE 103–2017 

1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section 

3.2 of appendix A to this subpart; 

1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103–2017 as 

specified in section 2.3.1 of appendix A to 

this subpart. 

1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–2017 as specified in section 

5.1 of appendix A to this subpart. 

1.3 UL 727–2018 

1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 

40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727– 

2018 as specified in section 2.2 of appendix 

A to this subpart; 

1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727–2018 as 

specified in section 3.1 of appendix A to this 

subpart. 

1.4 AHRI 1500–2015 

1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500–2015 

as specified in section 2.2 to appendix A of 

this subpart; 

1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 

of the AHRI 1500–2015 of section 4.2 of 

appendix A to this subpart. 

2. Testing 

2.1 Setup and test the unit according to 

sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this 

subpart, while operating the unit at the 

maximum nameplate input rate (i.e., full 

load). Calculate thermal efficiency TE using 

the procedure specified in sections 4 and 5 

of appendix A to this subpart. 

2.2 For commercial warm air furnaces 

that are designed for outdoor installation 

(including but not limited to CWAFs that are 

weatherized, or approved for resistance to 

wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 10751 

within an unheated space (i.e., isolated 

combustion systems), determine the jacket 

loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 while the unit is operating at 

the maximum nameplate input. 

2.3 For commercial warm air furnaces 

that are designed only for indoor insulation 

within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. 

For commercial warm air furnaces that are 

designed for indoor installation within a 

heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket 

loss determined in section 2.2 of this 

appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial 

warm air furnaces, including commercial 

warm air furnaces that are designed for 

outdoor installation (including but not 

limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or 

approved for resistance to wind, rain, or 

snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in 

section 2.2 of this appendix by 3.3. 

2.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in 

section 2.3 of this appendix from the TE 

determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to 

determine the full load efficiency. 

2.5 Setup and test the unit according to 

sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this 

subpart, while operating the unit at the 

nameplate minimum input rate (i.e., part 

load). Calculate TE using the procedure 

specified in sections 4 and 5 of appendix A 

to this subpart. 

2.6 For commercial warm air furnaces 

that are designed for outdoor installation 

(including but not limited to CWAFs that are 

weatherized, or approved for resistance to 

wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation 

within an unheated space (i.e., isolated 

combustion systems), determine the jacket 

loss using Section 5.40 and Annex J of ANSI 

Z21.47–2021 while the unit is operating at 

the minimum nameplate input. Alternatively, 

the jacket loss determined in section 2.2 of 

this appendix at the maximum nameplate 

input may be used. 

2.7 For commercial warm air furnaces 

that are designed only for indoor insulation 

within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. 

For commercial warm air furnaces that are 

designed for indoor installation within a 

heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket 

loss determined in section 2.6 of this 

appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial 

warm air furnaces, including commercial 

warm air furnaces that are designed for 

outdoor installation (including but not 

limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or 

approved for resistance to wind, rain, or 

snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in 

section 2.6 of this appendix by 3.3. 

2.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in 

section 2.7 of this appendix from the TE 

determined in section 2.5 of this appendix to 

determine the part load efficiency. 

2.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of 

the full-load and part-load. 

[FR Doc. 2022–03484 Filed 2–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2022–BT–TP–0003 and EERE–2022– 

STD–0001] 

RIN 1904–AE95 and 1904–AE97 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedure for Dedicated-Purpose Pool 

Pumps and Energy Conservation 

Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool 

Pumps; Reopening of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information; 

reopening of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: On January 24, 2022, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) 

published two requests for information 

(‘‘RFIs’’) regarding dedicated-purpose 

pool pumps. DOE published a RFI 

regarding test procedures for dedicatedpurpose pool pumps and a RFI 

regarding energy conservation standards 

for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The 

RFIs each provided an opportunity for 

submitting written comments, data, and 

information on the proposal by February 

23, 2022. DOE received a request from 

the Pool and Hut Tub Alliance on 

February 9, 2022, and a joint request 

from the Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, 

and Southern California Edison on 

February 11, 2022, each asking DOE to 

extend the public comment periods for 

both RFIs for 30 additional days. DOE 

has reviewed these requests and is 

reopening the public comment periods 

to allow comments to be submitted until 

March 9, 2022. 

DATES: The comment periods for the 

RFIs published on January 24, 2022 (87 

FR 3457; 87 FR 3461) is reopened. DOE 

will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding these RFIs 

received no later than March 9, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Alternatively, interested persons may 

submit comments, identified by docket 

number EERE–2022–BT–TP–0003 for 

the test procedure RFI and EERE–2022– 

BT–STD–0001 for the energy 

conservation standard RFI, by any of the 

following methods: 

(1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

(2) Email: DPPP2022TP0003@

ee.doe.gov for the test procedure RFI. 

DPPP2022STD0001@ee.doe.gov for the 

energy conservation standards RFI. For 

the test procedure RFI, include the 

docket number EERE–2022–BT–TP– 

0003 or regulatory information number 

(‘‘RIN’’) 1904–AE95 in the subject line 

of the message. For the energy 

conservation standards RFI, include the 

docket number EERE–2022–BT–STD– 

0001 or regulatory information number 

(‘‘RIN’’) 1904–AE97 in the subject line 

of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier, the 

Department has found it necessary to 

make temporary modifications to the 

comment submission process in light of 

the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic. DOE 

is currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. If a commenter finds 

that this change poses an undue 

hardship, please contact Appliance 

Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 

1445 to discuss the need for alternative 

arrangements. Once the COVID–19 

pandemic health emergency is resolved, 

DOE anticipates resuming all of its 

regular options for public comment 

submission, including postal mail and 

hand delivery/courier. 

Docket: The dockets, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts (if a public 

meeting is held), comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, are 

available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the dockets are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

The docket web pages can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2022-BT-TP-0003 and 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2020-BT-STD-0001 for dedicatedpurpose pool pump test procedure and 

energy conservation standards, 

respectively. The docket web pages 

contain instructions on how to access 

all documents, including public 

comments, in each docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 

9870. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1