52422 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2—U.S. MILK PRODUCTION BY REGION AND PROPOSED NUMBER OF BOARD SEATS

Proposed regions and states 

Milk 

production 

(mil. lbs.) 

Percentage 

of total milk 

production 

Proposed 

number of 

board seats 

1. Alaska, Oregon, Washington ................................................................................................... 9,378.2 4.3 2 

2. California, Hawaii ..................................................................................................................... 40,565.9 18.6 7 

3. Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming .......................................................... 13,005.6 6.0 2 

4. Arkansas, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas ............................................................... 26,654.0 12.2 4 

5. Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota ................................................................................ 13,067.0 6.0 2 

6. Wisconsin ................................................................................................................................ 30,601.0 14.0 5 

7. Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska ............................................................................................ 9,548.0 4.4 2 

8. Idaho ........................................................................................................................................ 15,631.0 7.2 3 

9. Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia ................................................................................... 20,973.0 9.6 3 

10. Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia .................................................. 8,528.0 3.9 1 

11. Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania .................................................................. 11,121.7 5.1 2 

12. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont 19,308.6 8.8 3 

Total: ..................................................................................................................................... 218,382.0 100 36 

Source: USDA NASS Milk Production, Disposition, and Income 2019 Summary. 

The Dairy Board unanimously 

approved the proposal to change the 

number of seats in two of the 12 

geographic regions. AMS independently 

reviewed the Dairy Board’s 

reapportionment proposal and 

concluded that data from USDA’s NASS 

Milk Production, Disposition, and 

Income 2019 Summary supports the 

proposed changes. During AMS’s 

independent analysis, AMS also 

determined that the Dairy Board 

fulfilled the Dairy Order’s requirement 

to conduct an evaluation and 

recommended changes to the Secretary 

in order to best reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production volume 

in the United States. Therefore, after 

AMS’s evaluation of the Dairy 

reapportionment proposal, AMS agrees 

that the proposed membership change 

would better reflect the geographic 

distribution of milk production volume 

in the United States. A 30-day comment 

period is provided for interested 

persons to comment on this proposed 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1150 

Dairy Products, Milk, Promotion, 

Research. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, AMS proposes to amend 7 

CFR part 1150 as follows: 

PART 1150—DAIRY PROMOTION 

PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 1150 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4501–4514 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401 

■ 2. In § 1150.131, revise paragraphs 

(b)(8) and (10) to read as follows: 

§ 1150.131 Establishment and 

membership. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(8) Three members from region 

number eight comprised of the 

following State: Idaho. 

* * * * * 

(10) One member from region number 

ten comprised of the following States: 

Alabama, District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. 

* * * * * 

Erin Morris, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2021–20379 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[EERE–2018–BT–PET–0017] 

RIN 1904–AE37 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Consumer Warm Air 

Furnaces; Final Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

and provides the reasoning for the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s final denial of a 

petition filed by the Air-Conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

requesting that DOE initiate a noticeand-comment rulemaking to develop a 

new combined test procedure for 

consumer furnaces and furnace fans, 

which would replace the two currently 

required performance metrics for 

furnaces and the one performance 

metric for furnace fans with a single 

new metric called ‘‘AFUE2.’’ 

DATES: This final denial of petition for 

rulemaking is applicable September 21, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: The petition and comments 

filed in accordance with the timelines 

set forth in the prior Federal Register 

notice have been entered into docket 

number EERE–2018–BT–PET–0017. The 

docket is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov. For further 

information on how to review the 

docket, contact the Appliance and 

Equipment Standards Program staff at 

(202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Catherine Rivest, 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– 

7335. Email: ApplianceStandards 

Questions@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0103. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition for 

Rulemaking 

II. Background and Authority 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52423 

1All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

III. AHRI’s Petition for Rulemaking Summary 

and Comments 

IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion 

V. Denial of Petition 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of Final Denial of Petition 

for Rulemaking 

This document denies a petition 

received by the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) requesting that DOE 

initiate a rulemaking to develop a new 

combined test procedure addressing 

covered consumer furnaces and furnace 

fans, which would replace the two 

currently required performance metrics 

for furnaces (i.e., annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (‘‘AFUE’’) and standby mode/ 

off mode energy consumption (PW,SB/ 

PW,OFF)) and the one performance 

metric for furnace fans (i.e., fan 

efficiency ratio (‘‘FER’’)) with a single 

new metric called ‘‘AFUE2.’’ AHRI 

asserted that a single performance 

metric would reduce regulatory burden 

for furnace manufacturers by 

streamlining test requirements and 

aligning regulatory review schedules 

and promote design flexibility and 

product innovation. 

DOE has determined that a combined 

test procedure and energy conservation 

standard for consumer furnaces and 

furnace fans would enable an increase 

in the maximum allowable energy use 

and/or minimum required efficiency of 

furnaces and furnace fans, each a 

separate covered product. AHRI’s 

suggested unified metric would allow 

for trade-offs in energy use between the 

two separately regulated modes of 

furnace operation (i.e., active mode and 

standby mode/off mode) and furnaces 

fans. These tradeoffs in turn have the 

potential to allow for furnaces to 

consume more energy in active mode or 

standby mode/off mode than permitted 

under the active mode and standby/off 

mode standards, or for furnace fans to 

consume more energy than permitted 

under the current furnace fan standard. 

This is impermissible under the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ provision of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as 

amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 which prevents 

the Secretary from prescribing any 

amended standard that either increases 

the maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of a covered product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) DOE has also 

determined that a unified metric for 

consumer furnaces and furnace fans 

(using the proposed combined metric 

AFUE2) would be contrary to DOE’s 

prior determination that it is 

technologically infeasible to integrate 

active mode and standby or off mode 

energy use for furnaces. 

Therefore, after carefully considering 

AHRI’s request, supporting materials 

accompanying the request, and 

submitted comments, DOE is declining 

to grant AHRI’s request for the reasons 

set forth in the following discussion. 

II. Background and Authority 

EPCA, as amended, among of things, 

authorizes DOE to regulate the energy 

efficiency of a number of consumer 

products and certain industrial 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title 

III, Part B2 of EPCA established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles, which sets forth a variety 

of provisions designed to improve 

energy efficiency for certain types of 

consumer products. These products 

include consumer furnaces and furnace 

fans, the focus of this document. (42 

U.S.C. 6292(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(4)(D)) 

Under EPCA, DOE’s energy 

conservation program consists 

essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) 

labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards, and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. Relevant 

provisions of EPCA specifically include 

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

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

provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy 

conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), 

and the authority to require information 

and reports from manufacturers (42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

The Federal testing requirements 

consist of test procedures that 

manufacturers of covered products must 

use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to 

DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making 

representations about the efficiency of 

that product (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). 

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

product complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth 

the criteria and procedures DOE is 

required to follow when prescribing or 

amending test procedures for covered 

products. Specifically, EPCA requires 

that any test procedures prescribed or 

amended must be reasonably designed 

to produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use and 

requires that test procedures not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The test procedures 

for consumer furnaces and furnace fans 

are set forth in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 10 CFR part 430. 

More specifically, the test procedure for 

furnaces is located at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix N (‘‘Appendix N’’), 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Furnaces and 

Boilers. The test procedure for furnace 

fans is located at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix AA (‘‘Appendix 

AA’’), Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Furnaces Fans. 

Relevant to this document, EPCA also 

requires DOE to follow specific statutory 

criteria for prescribing new or amended 

standards for covered products, 

including consumer furnaces and 

furnace fans. Any new or amended 

standard for a covered product must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that 

the Secretary of Energy determines is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) 

Additionally, pursuant to the 

amendments to EPCA contained in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110– 

140, any final rule for new or amended 

energy conservation standards 

promulgated after July 1, 2010, is 

required to address standby mode and 

off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE 

adopts a standard for a covered product 

after that date, it must, if justified by the 

criteria for adoption of standards under 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

into a single standard, or, if that is not 

feasible, adopt a separate standard for 

such energy use for that product. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) 

DOE has established energy 

conservation standards for furnace 

energy efficiency using the AFUE 

metric, which is the ratio of annual 

output energy to annual input energy. 

10 CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii). DOE also 

separately established energy 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52424 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

3The AHRI Petition is available in the docket at 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2018-BTPET-0017-0002. The petition did not identify any of 

the information contained therein as confidential 

business information. 4The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket for the 

petition for rulemaking. (Docket No. EERE–2018– 

BT–PET–0017, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

5On November 2, 2018, DOE issued an 

enforcement policy stating that it would not enforce 

the testing, certification, and standards 

requirements for furnace fans while DOE 

considered the 2018 Petition for Rulemaking. In 

response to the policy statement DOE received 

comments from a wide variety of parties as well as 

a letter from AHRI requesting that DOE rescind the 

enforcement policy. On February 11, 2019, DOE 

rescinded the November 2, 2018 policy statement. 

The request that DOE not enforce the furnace fan 

energy conservation pending consideration of the 

petition for rulemaking is not considered further in 

this document. The policy statement and rescission 

are available at www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/ 

furnace-fan-enforcement-policy. 

6Stakeholders’ comments can be accessed in the 

docket at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2018- 

BT-PET-0017. DOE also received several nonsubstantive comments or comments not relevant to 

the petition, which are not included in the table. 

conservation standards for furnace 

standby mode and off mode electrical 

power consumption, PW,SB and PW,OFF, 

respectively, which account for all 

furnace electrical consumption in 

standby and off modes. 10 CFR 

430.32(e)(1)(iii). DOE has established an 

energy conservation standard for 

furnace fans using the FER metric, 

which is the ratio of the electrical 

energy consumption to airflow in watts 

per cubic feet per minute (CFM). 10 CFR 

430.32(y). The FER metric measures 

performance during active mode when 

the fan is circulating air, but it does not 

include provisions for measuring 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption of furnace fans (although 

appendix AA includes a section 

reserved for future provisions to address 

standby mode and off mode energy use, 

if necessary). Instead, the standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption for 

furnace fans is addressed by the test 

procedures and metrics for consumer 

furnaces and residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, as these 

products operate in conjunction with 

furnace fans. See 78 FR 19606, 19619 

(April 2, 2013). 

The Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., provides 

among other things, that ‘‘[e]ach agency 

shall give an interested person the right 

to petition for the issuance, amendment, 

or repeal of a rule.’’ (5 U.S.C. 553(e)) 

III. AHRI’s Petition for Rulemaking 

Summary and Comments 

On October 12, 2018, DOE received a 

petition from AHRI (‘‘AHRI Petition’’) 

asking DOE to initiate notice-andcomment rulemaking to develop a new 

test procedure for residential furnaces 

and furnace fans which would replace 

the two currently required performance 

metrics for furnaces (i.e., AFUE and 

PW,SB/PW,OFF) and the one performance 

metric for furnace fans (i.e., FER) with 

a single new metric (i.e., AFUE2).3 On 

November 14, 2018, DOE published a 

Notice of Petition for Rulemaking 

(‘‘2018 Notice of Petition for 

Rulemaking’’) announcing the receipt of 

the AHRI Petition and inviting 

interested parties to submit comments. 

83 FR 56746. 

In the petition, AHRI suggested 

AFUE2 metric would account for 

furnace fuel, fan power, and standby 

mode and off mode power consumption, 

and the measured value would 

represent the sum of usable heat and fan 

benefit, divided by the total fuel and 

electricity consumed. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 

2) 4 AHRI asserted that transitioning to 

a single metric, such as AFUE2, would 

reduce regulatory burden on 

manufacturers by streamlining test 

requirements and aligning regulatory 

review schedules, thereby promoting 

design flexibility and product 

innovation. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 4–5) The 

petitioner further asserted that 

consumers would also benefit by having 

a single, combined metric for product 

comparison purposes and by receiving 

some portion of anticipated cost 

savings, all of which could be achieved 

without sacrificing energy savings. 

(AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 5–6) The petition 

acknowledges that a combined metric 

would necessitate a translation of the 

existing energy conservation standards 

applicable to residential furnaces and 

furnace fans. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 6–7) 

Additionally, in a separate letter to DOE 

dated November 2, 2018, AHRI 

requested that DOE not enforce the 

reporting, certification and compliance 

obligations related to the furnace fan 

energy conservation standards pending 

consideration of their petition for 

rulemaking.5 (AHRI, No. 3 at pp. 1–2) 

In the 2018 Notice of Petition for 

Rulemaking, DOE invited interested 

parties to submit comments regarding 

the petition. 83 FR 56746, 56746 (Nov. 

14, 2018). DOE received comments in 

response to the 2018 Notification of 

Petition for Rulemaking from the 

interested parties listed in Table II–1.6

In the following discussion, DOE 

addresses the relevant comments. 

TABLE II–1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO 2018 NOTIFICATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type 

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

Alliance to Save Energy ....................................................................................................... ASE ........................... Efficiency Organizations. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, and Natural Resources Defense Council.Joint Commenters ..... Efficiency Organizations. 

California Energy Commission ............................................................................................. CEC .......................... State Agency. 

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

Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection ..................................... CT DEEP .................. State Agency. 

Consumer Federation of America and National Consumer Law Center ............................. Consumer Groups .... Consumer Organizations. 

Earthjustice and the Sierra Club .......................................................................................... Earthjustice and the 

Sierra Club.

Efficiency Organizations. 

Ingersoll Rand ...................................................................................................................... Ingersoll Rand ........... Manufacturer. 

Lennox International ............................................................................................................. Lennox ...................... Manufacturer. 

Lochinvar/A.O. Smith Corporation ........................................................................................ A.O. Smith ................ Manufacturer. 

National Electric Manufacturers Association ........................................................................ NEMA ........................ Trade Association. 

National Grid ......................................................................................................................... National Grid ............. Utilities. 

Natural Resources Defense Council .................................................................................... NRDC ........................ Efficiency Organizations. 

New York State Energy Research and Development Authority .......................................... NYSERDA ................. State Agency. 

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership ............................................................................. NEEP ........................ Efficiency Organizations. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ................................................................................... NEEA ........................ Efficiency Organizations. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council ....................................................................... NPCC ........................ Utilities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52425 

7AHRI’s calculations of burden reduction are 

included in Exhibit 3, which was submitted with 

the original petition and can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2018-BTPET-0017-0002. 

8 DOE understands the Joint Commenters to be 

referencing 42 U.S.C. 6293(e), which provides that 

in the case of any amended test procedure, the 

Secretary shall determine to what extent, if any, the 

proposed test procedure would alter the measured 

energy efficiency, measured energy use, or 

measured water use of any covered product as 

determined under the existing test procedure and 

that if the Secretary determines that the amended 

test procedure will alter the measured efficiency or 

measured use, the Secretary shall amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard as 

prescribed by certain provisions specified in 42 

U.S.C. 6293(e) during the rulemaking carried out 

with respect to such test procedure. 

TABLE II–1—WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO 2018 NOTIFICATION OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING— 

Continued 

Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type 

Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric 

(collectively the California Investor-Owned Utilities).

CA IOUs .................... Utilities. 

Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors ................................................................................ PHCC ........................ Trade Association. 

Regal Beloit America, Inc ..................................................................................................... Regal Beloit .............. Manufacturer. 

Rheem Manufacturing Company .......................................................................................... Rheem ...................... Manufacturer. 

In general overview, furnace 

manufacturers supported the AHRI 

petition, stating that a combined metric 

would lead to benefits for both 

manufacturers and/or consumers. 

(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 1–5; Carrier, No. 

33 at pp. 1, 3–4; Rheem, No. 45 at pp. 

1–2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) More 

specifically, manufacturers referenced 

the fact that there are currently three 

different energy conservation standards 

(and three different test procedures) 

related to consumer furnace efficiency 

(i.e., AFUE, FER, and standby mode/off 

mode power consumption) and that 

each of these regulations is subject to 

separate regulatory review schedules. 

(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–4; Rheem, No. 

45 at pp. 1–2) Lennox further stated that 

having so many separate regulatory 

schedules places manufacturers, 

distributors, contractors, and DOE in a 

constant state of change and adjustment. 

Lennox stated that every time DOE 

amends standards, manufacturers must 

redesign equipment, make capital 

investments to update manufacturing 

facilities, republish marketing literature, 

and educate distributors, contractors, 

and consumers about the changes. 

Lennox also asserted that the costs 

associated with these activities are 

ultimately passed on to consumers. 

(Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–5) 

Manufacturers stated that adopting the 

AFUE2 metric, consolidating 

certification and testing requirements, 

and streamlining rulemaking and 

redesign cycles could allow for more 

effective utilization of manufacturer 

resources by reducing this regulatory 

burden. (Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 3–4; 

Carrier, No. 33 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 45 

at p. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) 

Manufacturers also generally asserted 

that the simplified ratings could reduce 

design constraints or otherwise increase 

opportunities for innovation. (Carrier, 

No. 33 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2; 

Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1) Lennox 

suggested that setting requirements for 

individual furnace components restricts 

design choices between various aspects 

of a residential furnace. Lennox stated 

that the AFUE2 test method would 

promote innovation by enabling 

manufacturers to develop the most 

effective solution for overall product 

efficiency at the lowest cost. (Lennox, 

No. 34 at p. 5) In its petition, AHRI 

estimated that the total reduction in 

regulatory burden resulting from 

implementation of AFUE2 would save 

manufacturers more than $250 million 

over thirty years. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 4) 7

Manufacturers also stated that a 

combined metric would make it easier 

for consumers to compare the overall 

efficiencies of furnace models. (Carrier, 

No. 33 at pp. 3–4; Lennox, No. 34 at pp. 

3, 4) More specifically, Lennox 

suggested that consumers (and selling 

contractors) often do not understand 

that the energy consumption associated 

with the FER metric generally is less 

than 5 percent of the total energy 

consumed in the operation of a product, 

or that standby mode represents a 

miniscule amount of energy use 

compared to the amount of energy used 

to create heat via combustion. (Lennox, 

No. 34 at p. 3) 

Lennox also commented that the 

AFUE2 metric would also have the 

benefit of reducing the need for 

government intervention and saving 

government resources by reducing the 

quantity of regulations. (Lennox, No. 34 

at pp. 2, 5) Finally, several furnace 

manufacturers commented that although 

a crosswalk has not yet been completed, 

further work in this area should 

continue and suggested that revised 

energy efficiency standards (in terms of 

AFUE2) could reflect the overall system 

energy efficiency already required by 

the AFUE, PWSB and PWOFF, and FER 

metrics. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 43 at p. 1; 

Rheem, No. 45 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 34 

at pp. 2, 4) 

In contrast, efficiency organizations, 

State agencies, and utilities generally 

opposed the petition, asserting that the 

combined metric would obscure the 

efficiencies of separately regulated 

elements (which often use different 

energy sources) and could potentially 

lead to backsliding. These commenters 

also asserted that a combined metric 

could reduce the amount of future 

energy savings potential. (NEEA, No. 35 

at pp. 1, 4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at 

pp. 1–3; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 1–6; 

Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 31 

at pp. 1, 3–4; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 1, 4– 

5; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1–2; CA 

IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1–4; NEEP, No. 36 

at p. 1; CT DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1; NEMA, 

No. 26 at pp. 5–8) 

Consumer Groups stated that AHRI’s 

petition relies on the assumption that a 

crosswalk can be generated to translate 

the three current standards to a single 

standard that relies on AFUE2 without: 

(a) Diminishing the energy savings that 

would otherwise be achieved, (b) 

harming consumers, or (c) violating 

EPCA. These commenters stated that it 

is unproven that such a crosswalk is 

possible and further argued that such 

approach would not be permissible 

under EPCA. (Consumer Groups, No. 31 

at pp. 2–4) 

The Joint Commenters stated that 

AHRI’s requested change to the test 

procedures (and subsequent changes to 

the energy conservation standards), if 

adopted by DOE, would violate the 

specific directive from EPCA that 

requires DOE to set air circulation 

efficiency standards; illegally combine 

the required air circulation standard 

with a standards based on fuel use; 

improperly apply the EPCA provision 

regarding adjustment to standards based 

on test procedure changes to an 

amendment merging standards; 8 and 

adopt an approach for standby mode 

and off mode power consumption that 

DOE has previously found is not 

technically feasible. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 42 at p. 7) Earthjustice and the 

Sierra Club and NRDC similarly stated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52426 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

that DOE does not have authority under 

EPCA to crosswalk and combine 

multiple metrics into a single combined 

metric, or the authority to combine the 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption metrics with active mode 

energy consumption for furnaces. 

(Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41 

at pp. 4–6; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 3–6) 

Earthjustice and the Sierra Club also 

stated that DOE does not have authority 

under EPCA to combine the electrical 

energy consumption of furnace fans into 

the fuel efficiency standards for 

furnaces. (Earthjustice and the Sierra 

Club, No. 41 at pp. 2–3) Consumer 

Groups stated that AHRI’s position that 

42 U.S.C. 6293(e) provides the authority 

for DOE to develop an AFUE2 standard 

to replace the three current standards is 

in error because AHRI is not proposing 

to amend an existing test procedure 

(which is what 42 U.S.C. 6293(e) 

addresses), but rather to eliminate 

existing test procedures and replace 

them with an entirely new test 

procedure and associated standards. 

(Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 6) 

Multiple commenters also asserted 

that under the combined metric, lessefficient furnace fans could be used and 

that this would reduce the potential for 

future energy savings or enable the use 

of less-efficient furnace fans than are 

currently allowed. (NEEP, No. 36 at p. 

1; CEC, No. 38 at pp. 3–4; CT DEEP, No. 

46 at p. 1; NYSERDA, No. 30 at pp. 1– 

2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; CA 

IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1–4; NEMA, No. 26 

at pp. 5–8; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 

3–4; NPCC, No. 29 at p. 2; Joint 

Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2–3, 7; 

Earthjustice and the Sierra Club, No. 41 

at pp. 3–4) 

Regal Beloit commented that the 

AFUE2 test procedure could potentially 

result in an increase in the maximum 

allowable energy use from furnace fans 

because the AFUE2 test procedure 

would change certain definitions and/or 

values of certain variables that could 

lead to an increase in the maximum 

allowable energy use of furnace fans. 

(Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) NEEP and 

CT DEEP commented that combining 

efficiency standards could present new 

challenges for energy efficiency efforts 

that use Federal standards in their 

calculations. (NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1; CT 

DEEP, No. 46 at p. 1) 

PHCC supported the effort to 

consolidate metrics and streamline the 

regulatory process (which it asserted 

would lead to reduced costs for 

consumers), but also expressed concerns 

that the proposal should undergo 

further review to ensure that no 

backsliding could occur. (PHCC, No. 32 

at pp. 1–2) NEMA supported the 

initiative to reduce regulatory burden by 

consolidating the three existing test 

procedures into a single metric for 

furnaces, but expressed concerns that 

the proposal outlined in the AHRI 

Petition would not comply with 

statutory requirements set forth in EPCA 

(specifically referencing the antibacksliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)). NEMA encouraged DOE to 

deny AHRI’s petition but encouraged 

AHRI to reformulate its proposed metric 

to ensure compliance with EPCA. 

(NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 2–8) 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the AFUE2 metric could 

confuse, mislead, or otherwise 

negatively impact consumers by 

masking the operating costs of different 

elements and products (with different 

energy sources), or lead to increased 

consumer costs. (NEEA, No. 35 at pp. 1– 

4; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 1, 4, 

8; NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 2, 8; NYSERDA, 

No. 30 at pp. 1–2; National Grid, No. 28 

at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5–6; 

Consumer Groups, No. 31 at p. 3; Regal 

Beloit, No. 25 at pp. 4–5) Similarly, ASE 

commented that the use of site-energy 

equivalents (rather than primary energy 

or average energy costs) to combine 

electricity and natural gas consumption 

into a single metric could lead to 

backsliding and could significantly 

misrepresent the relative energy 

operating costs to homeowners and 

consumers. (ASE, No. 40 at p. 2) 

NYSERDA stated that AFUE2 would 

incentivize manufacturers to optimize 

their designs to reduce site energy use, 

rather than consumer costs or total 

energy use. (NYSERDA, No. 30 at p. 2) 

National Grid and the CA IOUs stated 

that combining fuel sources into one 

metric creates confusion for utilities 

when estimating fuel savings associated 

with different products, which could 

make it difficult to develop incentive 

programs. (National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; 

CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 1, 5–6) The CA 

IOUs suggested that a shift to AFUE2 

would result in higher peak loads for 

electric utilities (which these 

commenters argued could in turn lead 

to higher utility bills for customers) 

because the saturation of efficient 

furnace fans and low standby loss units 

will decrease (as fan/electrical 

efficiency has a very limited impact on 

AFUE2 ratings). (CA IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 

7–8) Regal Beloit added that 

maintaining the FER metric would 

protect consumer choice by driving the 

use of high-efficiency motors in all 

furnace types. (Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 

4) 

Regarding manufacturer burden, the 

Joint Commenters suggested that 

moving forward with the AFUE2 metric 

could undermine regulatory 

predictability because it would strand 

the investments that furnace fan 

component manufacturers and furnace 

manufacturers have already made 

towards FER compliance. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 6–7) NEEP 

asserted that the AFUE2 petition and 

enforcement policy would create 

regulatory uncertainty and undue 

hardship for motor manufacturers, 

retailers, distributors, and customers 

who are unclear about which furnaces 

will be compliant with the new 

standards. (NEEP, No. 36 at p. 1) NEEA 

and the Joint Commenters also 

suggested that AHRI’s proposal would 

be damaging to manufacturers and their 

component and assembly suppliers, 

who have already invested in the design 

and production of products that meet 

the most recent efficiency standards. 

(NEEA, No. 35 at p. 3; Joint 

Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 6–7) The 

CA IOUs also commented that there is 

no need for ‘‘trade-offs’’ between 

furnace fan and furnace efficiency, 

asserting that DOE has shown efficiency 

improvements to each rating to be costeffective on their own. (CA IOUs, No. 27 

at p. 7) 

Consumer Groups remarked that 

while reductions in regulatory burden 

in the abstract are desirable, nothing in 

EPCA establishes ‘‘reducing regulatory 

burden’’ as a statutory goal, and 

according to these commenters, the 

contents of the AHRI petition violate 

explicit provisions of that statutory 

scheme. Specifically, the Consumer 

Groups provided several citations, 

which they argue require DOE to adopt 

and enforce standards for furnaces, 

including 42 U.S.C. 6291(23) (defining 

‘‘furnace’’), 42 U.S.C. 6291(22) (setting 

‘‘annual fuel utilization efficiency’’ as 

the ‘‘efficiency descriptor’’ for 

‘‘furnaces’’), 42 U.S.C 6295(f)(1) (setting 

initial AFUE standards for furnaces), 42 

U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) (directing DOE to 

set standards for furnace fans), and 42 

U.S.C. 6295(gg) (directing DOE to set 

standards for furnace standby mode and 

off mode energy use). (Consumer 

Groups, No. 31 at pp. 2–4) 

NEEA disagreed with AHRI’s claim 

that innovation would increase as a 

result of adoption the AFUE2 metric 

and suggested that innovation would 

actually decrease because manufacturers 

often improve product features 

unrelated to efficiency at the same time 

that they redesign products to meet new 

energy efficiency requirements. (NEEA, 

No. 35 at p. 2) Similarly, the Joint 

Commenters commented that AFUE2 

would allow manufacturers to avoid 

innovating air movement designs and 

suggested that increases in standards 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52427 

drive innovation. (Joint Commenters, 

No. 42 at p. 9) 

The Joint Commenters argued that 

AHRI’s claim of manufacturer cost 

savings is overstated and appears to 

result from the assumption that furnace 

fan and standby mode and off mode 

efficiency improvements would not be 

required, which the commenters argued 

is not realistic since future standards 

must maximize technologically feasible 

and economically justified efficiency 

improvements. These commenters also 

argued that the assumption by AHRI 

that all future standards will have the 

same conversion costs as the first 

standard is similarly unrealistic, 

because future increases to the furnace 

fan standards will not be as far-reaching 

as the initial standards. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 42 at p. 7) 

Several commenters, including 

manufacturers, utilities, and efficiency 

organizations, did come together in 

support of aligning future rulemakings 

or compliance timelines (including 

AFUE, FER, and PWSB and PWOFF test 

procedures and standards) to reduce 

manufacturer burden. (Lennox, No. 34 

at pp. 2, 5–6; Regal Beloit, No. 25 at p. 

1; Joint Commenters, No. 42 at pp. 2, 7; 

CEC, No. 38 at p. 5; CA IOUs, No. 27 

at pp. 8–9; Consumer Groups, No. 31 at 

p. 3; NEMA, No. 26 at p. 8; NEEA, No. 

35 at p. 2) Lennox opined that EPCA 

(specifically, 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B)) 

precludes DOE from imposing AFUE 

and FER standards in an uncoordinated 

manner within a six-year period. 

(Lennox, No. 34 at p. 6) 

Several commenters stated that the 

AFUE2 metric was developed without 

significant or open stakeholder input 

and/or argued that further review would 

be required before it could be adopted. 

(NEEP, No. 36 at pp. 1–2; CT DEEP, No. 

46 at pp. 1–2; NYSERDA, No. 30 at p. 

2; National Grid, No. 28 at p. 1; Regal 

Beloit, No. 25 at p. 4) Along these lines, 

ASE suggested that a single metric is 

logical and intuitive for consumers and 

could be investigated in a future 

rulemaking to determine whether a 

single metric for furnaces is feasible, 

capable of facilitating increased 

efficiency, and in the best interests of 

homeowners and consumers. However, 

ASE also suggested that DOE should 

conduct a thorough analysis of the 

possibility of a new test procedure for 

the next energy conservation standard 

for furnaces to avoid the need for a 

crosswalk and prevent the possibility of 

backsliding. (ASE, No. 40 at p. 2) 

Similarly, NPCC supported the concept 

of a single metric because it could be a 

simpler metric for consumers, could 

reduce the number of test procedures 

and energy conservation standards 

rulemakings for DOE and industry, and 

could permit more flexible innovation 

by manufacturers. However, NPCC 

opposed the petition as written, 

asserting that the specific AFUE2 

approach in the petition would likely 

reduce or eliminate the impact of the 

furnace fan standards. (NPCC, No. 29 at 

p. 2) 

NRDC and the CA IOUs specifically 

opposed the AFUE2 test procedure’s 

move to eliminate cyclic testing, 

asserting that this would remove the 

incentives for manufacturers to reduce 

cycling losses. (NRDC, No. 39 at pp. 6– 

7; CA IOUs, No. 27 at p. 9) NRDC also 

asserted that elimination of cyclic 

testing in the requested test procedure 

and its modification of the assumed 

operating hours that go into calculating 

AFUE are attempts to reopen issues that 

have already been publicly discussed 

and decided by DOE. (NRDC, No. 39 at 

pp. 6–7) 

NEMA recommended that in any 

future standard based on AFUE2, DOE 

should require that the portion of the 

AFUE2 metric that accounts for furnace 

electrical consumption be as stringent or 

more stringent than the currently 

established FER standards. NEMA 

stated that this approach would require 

the differences in AHRI’s proposed 

AFUE2 formula and DOE’s FER formula 

(e.g., use of different operating hours) to 

be reconciled. (NEMA, No. 26 at pp. 6– 

8) A.O. Smith commented that the 

AFUE2 metric should not be applied to 

boilers based on the commenter’s 

understanding of the scope of the 

petitioners’ request and the product 

distinctions between a forced-air 

furnace and consumer boiler. A.O. 

Smith expressed concerns with several 

aspects of the AFUE2 metric including: 

(1) Inclusion of source-based power 

generation differences between gas and 

electricity in the metric; (2) the 

technical feasibility of integrating 

standby mode and off mode 

consumption with fossil-fuel 

consumption for consumer boilers; and 

(3) the absence of an affirmative 

indicator of intent to include consumer 

boilers in the AFUE2 metric. (A.O. 

Smith, No. 44 at pp. 1–2) 

As explained in the following section, 

DOE carefully considered the relevant 

comments received in evaluating 

whether to initiate a rulemaking to 

propose adoption of the AFUE2 metric 

as requested by AHRI in its petition for 

rulemaking. DOE’s response to these 

comments and its decision on the AHRI 

Petition are discussed in the balance of 

this document. 

IV. DOE Analysis and Discussion 

DOE first considered whether EPCA 

provides authority to adopt a single 

metric for furnaces and furnace fans, as 

requested by AHRI in their Petition for 

Rulemaking. As discussed, EPCA 

requires that any test procedures 

prescribed or amended must be 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which measure energy efficiency 

or energy use of a covered product 

during a representative average use 

cycle or period of use, as determined by 

the Secretary, and shall not be unduly 

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

6293(b)(3)) While the AHRI petition 

suggests that standards relying on 

AFUE2 could be established through a 

‘‘crosswalk’’ as part of the test 

procedure rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(e), that provision does not affect 

the Secretary’s obligation to issue final 

rules as described in 42 U.S.C. 6295. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(e)(4)) Among the 

obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6295, EPCA 

requires that any new or amended 

energy conservation standard prescribed 

by the Secretary for any type (or class) 

of covered product must be designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency, which the Secretary 

determines is technologically feasible 

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

6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE must also generally 

incorporate standby mode and off mode 

energy use into a single standard, or, if 

that is not feasible, adopt a separate 

standard for such energy use for that 

product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)–(B)) 

Also as discussed, EPCA contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) 

In the past, DOE has determined 

furnaces and furnace fans to be separate 

covered products, each subject to the 

relevant test procedure and energy 

conservation standard provisions under 

EPCA. 79 FR 38130, 38175 (July 3, 

2014). EPCA explicitly includes 

furnaces in the list of covered products. 

(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5)) Subject to certain 

criteria and conditions, EPCA requires 

DOE to consider and establish energy 

conservation standards for ‘‘electricity 

used for purposes of circulating air 

through duct work’’ (which DOE has 

defined as residential ‘‘furnace fans’’ at 

10 CFR 430.2)). (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) 

Accordingly, DOE has established 

energy conservation standards at 10 CFR 

430.32(y) for furnace fans as covered 

products through a final rule published 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
52428 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

9The CA IOUs did not measure jacket losses 

during testing and used the default value of 1 

percent, as is allowed by the furnace test procedure 

at Appendix N if a jacket lost test is not conducted. 

The CA IOUs also estimated the AFUE2 results with 

a jacket loss factor of 0.3 percent, and the difference 

in ratings between UUT–01 and UUT–02 in that 

case was 1.2 percent. 

10The original data provided by AHRI can be 

found at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2018-BT-PET-0017-0002 as Exhibit 2. 

in the Federal Register on July 3, 2014. 

79 FR 38130. Separately, DOE has 

established an energy conservation 

standard for furnaces governing the 

energy efficiency of active mode (10 

CFR 430.32(e)(1)(ii)) and also 

established standards for furnace 

standby mode and off mode electrical 

power consumption (10 CFR 

430.32(e)(1)(iii)). 

DOE first evaluated whether it would 

be possible to establish a standard in 

terms of AFUE2 without increasing the 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreasing the minimum required 

efficiency of furnaces (excluding during 

standby mode and off mode operation) 

and/or furnace fans (i.e., whether a 

standard could be prescribed in terms of 

AFUE2 without violating EPCA’s antibacksliding provision). 

A combined metric (i.e., AFUE2) for 

furnaces and furnace fans would reflect 

the total energy consumption from both 

the furnace and furnace fan. In its 

petition, AHRI described the concept of 

the AFUE2 metric as follows: ‘‘The 

AFUE2 metric accounts for furnace fuel, 

fan power, and stand-by and off-mode 

power consumption. The measured 

value represents the sum of usable heat 

and fan benefit, divided by the total fuel 

and electricity consumed.’’ (AHRI, No. 2 

at p. 2) As a result of combining the 

various metrics into a single metric, 

manufacturers would be able to make 

tradeoffs between the efficiencies of the 

various covered products (e.g., using a 

less-efficient fan while improving the 

efficiency of fuel consumption), which 

could lead to the efficiencies of either 

covered product (i.e., either the furnace 

or furnace fan) decreasing below the 

currently applicable energy 

conservation standard. 

As an example, if a single energy 

conservation standard were established 

for furnaces and furnace fans using the 

AFUE2 metric that is of equivalent 

stringency to the current minimum 

AFUE and maximum standby mode and 

off mode power consumption levels 

required for furnaces, and the maximum 

FER levels allowed for furnace fans, 

then a furnace paired with a highly 

efficient furnace fan could potentially 

have a fuel consumption efficiency (i.e., 

AFUE) less than what is currently 

required under the AFUE standards 

(e.g., less than 80 percent AFUE for nonweatherized gas furnaces), resulting in 

backsliding for the furnace efficiency as 

compared to the existing AFUE 

standard. Similarly, an AFUE2 standard 

could be met by pairing a furnace with 

a high AFUE (e.g., over 90 percent) with 

an inefficient furnace fan that that 

would not separately meet the existing 

FER requirement. Furnaces with high 

AFUE ratings could also potentially 

meet AFUE2 standards despite having 

standby mode and/or off mode power 

consumption that are not compliant 

with current requirements. 

The CA IOUs provided test data for 

two units tested to the AFUE, FER, and 

AFUE2 test procedures that illustrated 

the risk of backsliding. The two units 

tested were both non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, and both had 80-percent 

AFUE ratings, input capacities of 60,000 

Btu/h, and maximum blower rated 

airflows of 1,200 CFM. One unit 

(referred to as unit under test (‘‘UUT’’)– 

01) had a permanent split capacitor 

blower motor and an FER rating of 359 

Watts per 1,000 cfm (which is noncompliant with the existing standard for 

furnace fans at 10 CFR 430.32(y)). The 

other unit (UUT–02) had a blower with 

a multi-speed electrically commutated 

motor and an FER rating of 233 Watts 

per 1,000 cfm (which is compliant with 

the existing standard for furnace fans at 

10 CFR 430.32(y)). Despite the 

significant differences in fan motor 

efficiencies, the AFUE2 ratings were 

only 1.3 percent different.9 (CA IOUs, 

No. 27 at pp. 1–3) These test results 

illustrate how efficiency improvements 

associated with a high-fuel-efficiency 

furnace could offset efficiency decreases 

from using a low-efficiency furnace fan 

at a given AFUE2 rating (i.e., illustrating 

how under a unified metric, 

implementing a high-efficiency furnace 

technology could enable backsliding of 

furnace fan energy efficiency). Thus, if 

DOE were to adjust its existing furnaces 

energy conservation standards to now 

also capture fan energy use, it would 

only impact minimally compliant 

products and arguably grant an 

improper reprieve to products at the 

higher end of the efficiency 

marketplace. Additionally, as was also 

discussed by the CA IOUs, the data 

provided by AHRI in its AFUE2 Petition 

Exhibit 2 (Example Calculations) 10

suggests that units with a wide range of 

FER ratings (including those that are 

compliant with the current FER 

requirements and those that are not) can 

have the same AFUE2 ratings. (CA 

IOUs, No. 27 at pp. 3–4) As a result of 

these findings, DOE has determined that 

adopting a single AFUE2 metric would 

violate EPCA’s anti-backsliding 

provisions because it would allow 

decreases in the energy efficiency of 

individual covered products. 

In evaluating the AHRI petition, DOE 

also separately sought to determine 

whether it would be feasible to integrate 

the active mode energy use and standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

into an integrated metric. DOE has 

previously determined in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register that it 

is not feasible to establish an energy 

conservation standard for furnaces that 

integrates electrical standby mode and 

off mode energy use. 75 FR 64621, 

64623 (Oct. 20, 2010; ‘‘October 2010 

final rule’’). In the October 2010 final 

rule, DOE concluded that it would not 

be technically feasible to develop an 

integrated metric combining electrical 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption into the calculation of 

overall annual energy consumption of 

those products because the standby 

mode and off mode energy usage, when 

measured, is essentially lost in practical 

terms due to the fact that manufacturers’ 

ratings of AFUE are presented to the 

nearest whole number. Id. Although 

furnace ratings are now reported to the 

tenth place for compliance certification 

purposes (see 10 CFR 429.18(a)(2)(vii)), 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption is substantially less than 

active mode power consumption and 

may not be apparent in the measured 

energy use of a furnace, and it does not 

change the fact that DOE’s furnace 

energy conservation standards using the 

AFUE metric continue to be set at the 

nearest whole number. As such, a 

combined metric would likely not 

provide consumers any meaningful 

information as to the standby mode and 

off mode energy use of a furnace and 

may disincentivize manufacturers from 

making improvements to standby mode 

and off mode furnace efficiency. 

DOE estimates that the electrical 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption typically make up less 

than one percent of the combined 

furnace and furnace fan energy 

consumption, meaning that small 

increases in standby mode and off mode 

consumption would have little bearing 

on the AFUE2 rating. In its review of 

data provided by AHRI as part of its 

petition, DOE noted that a hypothetical 

doubling of the standby mode power 

consumption would result in a change 

of the AFUE2 result of less than half of 

one percent for each unit in the dataset. 

The AHRI petition and accompanying 

data do not support DOE changing its 

prior determination that it is not be 

technically feasible to combine standby 

and off mode power consumption into 

a combined metric, and therefore, the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 180 / Tuesday, September 21, 2021 / Proposed Rules 52429 

11 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. 

Department continues to conclude that 

these standards should remain separate. 

As discussed previously, NEMA 

suggested that to prevent backsliding, in 

conjunction with a combined metric, 

DOE could create a separate 

requirement for the efficiency of the 

electrical component. (NEMA, No. 26 at 

pp. 6–8) For example, under such an 

approach, DOE would establish a 

combined metric (e.g., AFUE2) but 

would additionally require that the 

furnace fan maintain a level of 

efficiency (e.g., FER) no lower than the 

currently established FER standard. 

However, this approach was not 

suggested in the AHRI Petition, and 

DOE is not considering a modified 

combined metric, because with certain 

limited exceptions, DOE has interpreted 

the statutory definition of ‘‘energy 

conservation standard’’ at 42 U.S.C. 

6291(6) and 42 U.S.C. 6311(18) as 

permitting establishment of only a 

single performance standard.11

Furthermore, DOE notes that it is not 

clear that this suggested alternate 

approach would reduce the regulatory 

burden on manufacturers because a 

combined metric would have to include 

separate measurements and calculations 

for fuel consumption efficiency (to be 

compared to current AFUE standards), 

standby mode and off mode power 

consumption (to be compared to current 

PW,SB and PW,OFF standards), and 

furnace fan efficiency (to be compared 

to current FER standards) in order to 

prevent backsliding vis-a-vis any of the 

current metrics. Therefore, such an 

approach would effectively add an extra 

metric (e.g., AFUE2) without replacing 

any of the current metrics in practical 

terms. 

Because DOE has determined that the 

proposed AFUE2 combined metric for 

furnaces and furnace fans would not be 

permitted under EPCA, DOE considers 

other comments received regarding the 

AHRI Petition, and in particular 

whether DOE should propose to adopt 

the AFUE2 metric, to be resolved. With 

regard to comments suggesting that DOE 

should align its future rulemakings for 

furnaces and furnace fans to minimize 

regulatory burden on manufacturers, 

DOE notes that it is bound by the 

statutory timeline provisions set out in 

EPCA. In particular, EPCA provides 

that, not later than 6 years after the 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard, DOE must publish 

either a notice of determination that 

standards for the product do not need to 

be amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

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

EPCA also requires that, at least once 

every 7 years, DOE evaluate test 

procedures for each type of covered 

product, including furnaces and furnace 

fans, 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 or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A)) To the extent feasible, 

DOE will seek to align the statutory 

review schedules for furnaces and 

furnace fans consistent with the 

provisions EPCA. 

V. Denial of Petition 

Taking into account all of the factors 

discussed above and consistent with the 

requirements under EPCA, DOE is 

hereby denying AHRI’s petition for 

rulemaking. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final denial of 

petition for rulemaking. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on September 9, 

2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

and Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 

from the Secretary of Energy. That 

document with the original signature 

and date is maintained by DOE. For 

administrative purposes only, and in 

compliance with requirements of the 

Office of the Federal Register, the 

undersigned DOE Federal Register 

Liaison Officer has been authorized to 

sign and submit the document in 

electronic format for publication, as an 

official document of the Department of 

Energy. This administrative process in 

no way alters the legal effect of this 

document upon publication in the 

Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on September 

9, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–19813 Filed 9–20–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[MD Docket 21–190; FCC 21–98; FRS 47254] 

Assessment and Collection of 

Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2021 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on two 

issues that impact regulatory fees. First, 

what methodology should we use to 

assess regulatory fees on unlicensed 

spectrum users, and second, how 

should we calculate the fee for small 

satellites that will become a feeable 

category in FY 2022. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

October 21, 2021 and reply comments 

on or before November 5, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments 

identified by MD Docket No. 21–190, by 

any of the following methods below. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1