[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 88 (Friday, May 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25228-25234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10815]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

[Docket Number: EERE-BT-2006-WAV-0140]


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Decision and 
Order Denying a Waiver to PB Heat, LLC From the Department of Energy 
Residential Furnace and Boiler Test Procedures

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Decision and Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice publishes DOE's Decision and Order in Case No. 
WAV-0140, which denies a waiver to PB Heat, LLC (PB) from the existing 
DOE residential furnace and boiler test procedure. This Decision and 
Order pertains to PB's PO-50, PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 models of oil-
fired boilers. DOE previously published the PB Petition for Waiver and 
solicited comments, data, and information regarding the petition, which 
requested permission to publish a Low Water Temperature Seasonal 
Efficiency (LWTSE) value, conducted under an alternative industry test 
procedure, in addition to the mandatory Annual Fuel Utilization 
Efficiency (AFUE) value required under DOE's energy conservation 
standards. PB's petition suggested that testing and reporting of the 
AFUE value alone is not representative of its basic models' true energy 
consumption characteristics. DOE denies PB's Petition for Waiver for 
the reasons set forth below. Because a waiver is not appropriate, DOE 
cannot prescribe an alternative test procedure. However, the Decision 
and Order clarifies that it is permissible for a manufacturer to 
conduct LWTSE testing and to present such results in product 
literature. It is noted that the Energy Guide label used for 
certification and consumer information purposes can only present 
information generated under the DOE test procedure, as required under 
applicable Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations. When making such 
supplemental statements in the product literature, manufacturers must 
continue to conduct, report, and fairly disclose the AFUE test results 
generated under the DOE test procedures, and to use those AFUE results 
when making representations as to the basic model's energy efficiency. 
Supplemental statements regarding LWTSE must fairly disclose the 
results of such testing and may not mislead the consumer about the 
relevance of the required AFUE value. For example, DOE suggests any 
manufacturer that wishes to show the LWTSE values in addition to the 
AFUE value should make clear the differences between the two tests, 
including the different operating characteristics and conditions, for 
consumers.

DATES: This Decision and Order is effective May 7, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f6240474e42424a4b0164474e416f4a4a014b404a01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="420f2d2a232f2f27266c092a232c0227276c262d276c252d34">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Ms. Francine Pinto or Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#387e4a59565b51565d166851564c57785049165c575d165f574e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b0d392a252822252e651b22253f240b233a652f242e652c243d">[email protected]</span></a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6e2b1c070d403d1a0f1d2e061f400a010b40090118"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92d7e0fbf1bcc1e6f3e1d2fae3bcf6fdf7bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For access to the docket to read this notice, the Petition for 
Waiver, background documents, or comments received, please call Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 for information regarding visiting the 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program. The Resource Room 
is accessible at the U.S. Department of Energy, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 10 CFR 430.27(l), DOE 
gives notice of the issuance of its Decision and Order as set forth 
below. In this Decision and Order, DOE denies PB's request for a waiver 
from the existing DOE residential furnace and boiler test procedure for 
its PO-50, PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 models of oil-fired boilers. DOE 
denies the waiver because: (1) The PB units can and do operate at the 
higher water temperatures specified in the DOE test procedure; (2) 
there is no indication that the existing test procedure generates 
inaccurate results at the specified temperatures; and (3) the PB units 
meet the AFUE level required under the energy conservation standard. 
Accordingly, DOE has determined that the applicable test procedure is 
representative of the energy consumption characteristics of the PB 
basic models at the specified conditions (i.e., water temperatures) and 
that the DOE test procedures for these residential products will allow 
PB to test and rate its above-referenced line of oil-fired boilers.
    DOE clarifies that it is permissible for a manufacturer to conduct 
LWTSE testing and present the results in product literature (other than 
supplementation of the certification label, which can only present 
information generated under the DOE test procedure, as required under 
applicable FTC regulations). When making such supplemental statements 
in product literature, manufacturers must continue to conduct, report, 
and fairly disclose the AFUE test results generated under the DOE test 
procedures (10 CFR 430.62(a)(4)(viii)), and to use AFUE results when 
making representations as to the basic model's energy efficiency (42 
U.S.C. 6293(c)(1)). Supplemental statements regarding LWTSE must fairly 
disclose the results of such testing and may not mislead the consumer 
about the relevance of the required AFUE value. For example, DOE 
suggests any manufacturer that wishes to show the LWTSE values in 
addition to the AFUE value should make clear the differences between 
the two tests, including the different operating characteristics and 
conditions, for consumers.

    Issued in Washington, DC, April 30, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Decision and Order

    In the Matter of: PB Heat, LLC (PB) (Case No. WAV-0140).

Authority

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), 
as amended, sets forth a variety of provisions concerning energy 
efficiency, including Part A \1\ of Title III, which establishes the 
``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than 
Automobiles.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) Similarly, Part A-1 \2\ of Title 
III of EPCA, 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, provides for an energy efficiency 
program titled,

[[Page 25229]]

``Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This part was originally titled Part B. It was redesignated 
Part A in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
    \2\ This part was originally titled Part C. It was redesignated 
Part A-1 in the United States Code for editorial reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In general, Part A of Title III also provides for test procedures, 
labeling, and energy conservation standards for a variety of covered 
consumer products, including residential furnaces and boilers, and it 
authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers. 
With respect to test procedures, the statute generally authorizes the 
Secretary of Energy (the Secretary) to prescribe test procedures that 
are reasonably designed to produce results which reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated annual operating costs, and that 
are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) The 
statute further provides that no manufacturer, distributor, retailer, 
or private labeler may make any representation in writing (including on 
a label) or in any broadcast advertisement with respect to the energy 
use or efficiency (or water use) of a covered product to which a DOE 
test procedure is applicable, unless such product has been tested in 
accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly 
discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(1))
    In relevant part, EPCA requires that DOE prescribe standardized 
test procedures to measure the energy consumption of residential 
furnaces and boilers in terms of the AFUE metric. (42 U.S.C. 
6291(22)(A)) DOE adopted test procedures for residential furnaces and 
boilers which are codified at 10 CFR 430.23(n) and at 10 CFR 430, 
subpart B, appendix N (``Uniform Test Method For Measuring the Energy 
Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers''). The DOE test procedure 
incorporates by reference provisions of the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) Standard 103-1993, ``Method of 
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central 
Furnaces and Boilers.'' The test procedure prescribes a standardized 
method for measuring the energy consumption of various types of 
furnaces and boilers. Further, the test procedure measurements can be 
used in determining model-specific energy consumption information to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.
    DOE's regulations set forth under 10 CFR 430.27 contain provisions 
that enable a person to seek a waiver from the test procedure 
requirements for a covered consumer product under the following 
circumstances. Any interested person may submit a petition for waiver 
upon the grounds that the basic model contains a design characteristic 
which either prevents testing of the basic model according to the 
prescribed test procedures, or the prescribed test procedures may 
evaluate the basic model in a manner so unrepresentative of its true 
energy consumption characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate 
comparative data. 10 CFR 430.27(a)(1).
    Furthermore, the regulations authorize the Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (Assistant Secretary) to grant 
an Interim Waiver from test procedure requirements applicable to a 
particular basic model of consumer product, if it is determined that 
the applicant will experience economic hardship if the Application for 
Interim Waiver is denied, if it appears likely that the Petition for 
Waiver will be granted, and/or the Assistant Secretary determines that 
it would be desirable for public policy reasons to grant immediate 
relief pending a determination on the Petition for Waiver. 10 CFR 
430.27(g). An Interim Waiver will remain in effect for 180 days or 
until DOE issues its determination on the Petition for Waiver, 
whichever occurs first. Further, an Interim Waiver may be extended for 
an additional 180 days. 10 CFR 430.27(h).

Assertions and Determinations

    PB submitted a Petition for Waiver from the temperature 
requirements listed in ASHRAE Standard 103-1993, with errata of October 
24, 1996, which are incorporated into appendix N to subpart B of 10 CFR 
Part 430. The Petition for Waiver is based on the grounds that `` `the 
prescribed test procedures may evaluate the basic model in a manner so 
unrepresentative of its true energy consumption characteristics' '' [as 
to provide materially inaccurate comparative data]. 71 FR 46460, 46463 
(August 14, 2006). In its petition, PB requested that in addition to 
the mandatory reporting of AFUE, it be allowed to also provide an LWTSE 
efficiency measure for its oil-fired boilers based upon testing under 
the procedures in Appendix F of ASHRAE Standard 103-2003 (Public Review 
Draft).\3\ Id. at 46463-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Review Draft is currently part of ASHRAE Standard 103-
2007 as an informative appendix. ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 states, 
``This appendix is not part of the standard. It is merely 
informative and does not contain requirements necessary for 
conformance to the standard. It has not been processed according to 
the ANSI requirements for a standard and may contain material that 
has not been subject to public review or a consensus process. 
Unresolved objectors on informative material are not offered the 
right to appeal to ASHRAE or ANSI.'' However, for ease of 
discussion, this document will continue to refer to ASHRAE Standard 
103-2003, as specified in PB's original petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. PB Petition for Waiver
    On March 27, 2006, PB filed a petition requesting that it be 
permitted to publish an LWTSE value in conjunction with the AFUE value 
that is the result of testing under 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix N (i.e., the test procedures for residential furnaces and 
boilers). At specific issue in the PB Petition are its PO-50, PO-60, 
PO-63 and PO-73 models of oil-fired boilers. PB stated that the AFUE 
value from the prescribed test procedure may result in an evaluation of 
the basic model that is unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
characteristics. PB did not request to rely on the LWTSE metric in lieu 
of the AFUE metric, but instead requested permission to publish both 
values for its residential boilers. DOE's current test procedure does 
not provide for LWTSE testing, which represents a variant of AFUE under 
different operating conditions (i.e., lower return water temperatures).
    DOE understands that residential boilers are typically used either 
with baseboard convector or radiant floor heating systems that 
circulate water in a closed-loop fashion. Originating at the boiler, 
heated water is pumped to the convectors or radiant floor coils. As the 
water passes through the convectors or floor coils, heat is extracted, 
and the water is cooled. The heated water exiting the boiler is termed 
``supply water,'' and the cooled water entering the boiler is termed, 
``return water.'' For any given system, the return water temperature is 
directly related to the supply water temperature, which can be set at 
the boiler. Also, the return water temperature is a function of a 
house's heating load and the effectiveness of either the convector or 
radiant floor coil system. Different heating systems and heating 
control systems may provide different water temperatures. For example, 
supply and return water temperatures are typically lower for a radiant 
floor coil system than a convector system. Nevertheless, to uniformly 
test and compare the AFUE of different residential boiler heating 
systems, the procedure in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N 
specifies the use of standardized supply and return water temperatures 
for measuring the AFUE. As part of the petition, PB asserted that the 
specified temperatures do not suitably match the expected performance 
characteristics of the

[[Page 25230]]

subject boiler units, and consequently, the prescribed test procedures 
under 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2) and in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
N, evaluate the subject boiler models in a manner that is 
unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics in 
the field.
    PB stated that if a boiler is used with radiant floor heating 
systems, the return and supply water temperatures are far lower than 
those seen with baseboard convector systems. Similarly, PB stated that 
if a boiler is used with baseboard convector heating systems, in 
combination with outdoor reset controls, the supply water temperatures 
can be lower than that specified in the DOE test procedure for some 
fraction of the heating season. In its petition, PB also asserted that 
because the boilers in question are supplied with an outdoor reset 
control from the manufacturer, the boilers installed with either 
radiant floor heating systems or baseboard convector heating systems 
are capable of achieving condensing conditions, and increased 
efficiency and reduced energy use, during warmer periods of the heating 
season.
    In particular, PB asserted that its oil-fired boiler models PO-50, 
PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 achieve fully-condensing conditions at return 
water temperatures that are below the 120 degrees Fahrenheit (EF) 
return water temperature required under the test procedure at 10 CFR 
430.23(n)(2) and 10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix N. According to PB, 
these oil-fired boilers are designed to operate in low-temperature 
applications, and are supplied with an outdoor reset control that can 
allow the boiler to operate with lower return water temperatures for 
much of the heating season.
    In contrast, the DOE test procedure prescribed for boilers, under 
10 CFR 430.23(n) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, requires a 
return water temperature of 120 [deg]F. PB asserted that the DOE test 
procedure will not reflect the efficiency that its boilers are capable 
of achieving due to the variations in the return water temperature. 
Instead, PB argued that the procedure described in ASHRAE Standard 103-
2003, which uses a nominal return water temperature of 90 [deg]F and a 
nominal supply water temperature of 110 [deg]F, would better represent 
the seasonal efficiency of its boilers. PB believes that a waiver 
permitting publication of LWTSE would allow customers making purchasing 
decisions to ``receive the greatest seasonal efficiency, save money on 
fuel costs and apply for the Energy Tax Credit that is part of the 
Federal Energy Bill of 2005.'' 71 FR 46460, 46464 (August 14, 2006).
2. Factors To Consider in Granting or Evaluating a Petition
    DOE understands that PB is seeking a waiver of the test procedure 
requirements for return water temperature under 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2), 
because the petitioner asserts that the test procedure may evaluate its 
boiler models PO-50, PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 in a manner so 
unrepresentative of their true energy consumption characteristics as to 
provide materially inaccurate comparative data. Also, DOE understands 
that PB seeks to use an alternative test procedure (i.e., draft ASHRAE 
Standard 103-2003), which specifies lower supply and return water 
temperatures than required in DOE's test procedure and a different 
seasonal efficiency metric. In addition, PB requested permission to 
publish an LWTSE in addition to AFUE for its residential boilers.
    In light of the above, DOE considered the potential impacts of 
testing condensing boilers under lower water temperatures, as suggested 
by PB. In its notice publishing PB's Petition for Waiver, DOE expressed 
concern that the reliability of the approach suggested by PB in fact 
depends upon different seasonal and heating conditions that can vary 
from house to house, such as heating load profile that is a function of 
geographic location, temperature of the return water necessary for 
condensation, and the performance of a particular house's baseboard 
convectors or radiant floor heating system. DOE also tentatively 
concluded that appendix F of the draft ASHRAE Standard 103-2003 (which 
specifically states it is intended for radiant floor heating systems) 
does not take into account how often a boiler will operate in the 
condensing mode with a baseboard convector system, even with an outdoor 
reset control. Thus, it may not accurately reflect ``annualized'' 
efficiency, which could cause confusion to consumers making a 
purchasing decision. Further, DOE understands from the PB petition that 
outdoor reset controls are ``supplied'' with its boilers. However, it 
is unclear whether such controls are an integral part of the boiler 
itself or a separate mechanism for installation in the field. If these 
control mechanisms are field-installed, DOE cannot be certain that a 
boiler would be equipped with the intended outdoor controls, which 
ultimately impact the annual energy use of the unit. It is DOE's 
understanding that the outdoor temperature reset does not replace the 
safety mechanisms in place for residential boilers, which prevent them 
from operating at temperatures well above the DOE test procedure 
conditions. Finally, DOE questioned whether granting a waiver to PB 
could result in LTWSE ratings for its oil-fired boiler models PO-50, 
PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 that do not enable uniform comparison with the 
ratings of other oil-fired boilers. 71 FR 46460, 46461 (August 14, 
2006).

Discussion of Comments

    DOE announced in the Federal Register the PB Petition for Waiver, 
the potential use of draft ASHRAE Standard 103-2003, appendix F as an 
alternative test procedure for residential oil-fired furnaces and 
boilers, a calculation methodology for LWTSE, and a request for public 
comments. 71 FR 46460 (August 14, 2006).
    In particular, DOE requested comments on the following questions:
    <bullet> Does the DOE test procedure provide results that are 
unrepresentative of the PB PO-50, PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 models of 
oil-fired boilers' energy consumption so as to provide materially 
inaccurate comparative data in all installations?
    <bullet> Were PB to be granted a waiver, would it lead to a 
proliferation of petitions for waiver for other oil-fired boilers?
    <bullet> Is the DOE test procedure appropriate for boilers used 
with baseboard convector heating systems?
    <bullet> Are there other metrics that can be used to assess the 
performance of low-water-temperature boilers used with baseboard 
heating systems?
    <bullet> Is it appropriate for PB to use the proposed alternate 
test procedures for ratings and representations, and compliance with 
energy efficiency standards, building codes, and regulatory 
requirements?
    <bullet> Should the Department prescribe for manufacturers the 
LWTSE for low-water-temperature boilers?
    Id. at 46462.
    In response, DOE received comments from seven interested parties. 
The comments appear in Docket No. EERE-BT-2006-WAV-0140. (See the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section in this notice for further 
information about access to the docket.) The following discussion 
identifies each interested party and summarizes its relevant comments.
(1) Bradford White Corporation
    Bradford White Corporation (BWC) generally opposed the Petition for 
Waiver and commented that lowering the supply water temperature (140 
[deg]F) and the return water temperature (120 [deg]F) specified in 
ASHRAE Standard 103-1993 to 110 [deg]F and 90 [deg]F, respectively,

[[Page 25231]]

as PB requests, could increase the rated AFUE for all other boilers, 
especially condensing types. Further, BWC stated that the condensing 
products on today's market, including those with outdoor temperature 
reset controls, are currently rated according to the existing test 
procedures. In response to the above questions, BWC opined that the 
current test procedure (10 CFR 430.23(n)(2)) ``does not provide 
materially inaccurate comparative data.'' (BWC, 9 at p.1) Instead, BWC 
suggested that it is designed to select a single set of operating 
conditions that a boiler may see in service and measure efficiency at 
that point. This single operating test point allows consumers to 
compare data across available models and manufacturers. BWC asserted 
that the current test procedure is appropriate for boilers used with 
baseboard convector systems, and that creating other ratings would 
confuse the market and consumers by creating a matrix of boiler types, 
system types, operating temperatures, and so forth. (BWC, 9 at p.2)
(2) National Oilheat Research Alliance
    National Oilheat Research Alliance (NORA) generally favored the PB 
Petition for Waiver and provided several assertions to substantiate its 
position. First, the oil heating industry has objected to the AFUE 
rating procedure because it fails to recognize the benefits that 
controls and electronics may have on overall system efficiency. Second, 
NORA stated that the current test procedure for AFUE does not serve the 
interests of consumers because it does not allow the measurement of an 
oilheating boiler when it is fully condensing. Third, NORA argued that 
the operating system controls, including use of an outside reset 
feature, can adjust boiler water temperatures to meet particular 
heating loads, thereby improving efficiency over a range of weather 
conditions. (NORA, 8 at p.1,2)
(3) ECR International, Inc.
    ECR International, Inc. (ECRI) strongly urged DOE to deny the PB 
Petition for Waiver. In general, ECRI did not object to the 
supplemental use of LWTSE for marketing and informational purposes. 
However, ECRI asserted that the AFUE test results under DOE's test 
conditions must be clearly distinguished from the optional LWTSE 
metrics to prevent consumer confusion. Notwithstanding the above, ECRI 
objected to the PB Petition for Waiver for the following reasons. 
According to ECRI, AFUE provides a common standard by which a consumer 
can make a logical comparison between boiler models and manufacturers. 
However, AFUE can only be used for relative comparisons between boilers 
and not absolute expectations of fuel consumption, because the actual 
efficiency of a boiler depends on many factors that vary from house to 
house and the current test procedure requires a steady state condition 
for return water temperature. As an example, ECRI states that the 
performance of a unit configured with an outdoor reset feature and 
indirect domestic hot water heating will be different from a system 
without such features and that return water temperatures vary in any 
one demand cycle. (ECR, 6 at p.1)
    In response to the above questions raised by DOE, ECRI offered the 
following comments. First, ECRI generally stated that AFUE and LWTSE 
metrics are not comparable. ECRI opined that the LWTSE metric would 
provide a higher efficiency value using the same test method due to 
differences in operating temperatures. Second, if DOE grants PB a 
waiver, ECRI will apply for and expect to receive a waiver for its 
products (both gas and oil types), and the result would be an increase 
of one to three percentage points of efficiency. Third, the current 
test procedure is appropriate for boilers used in baseboard 
applications, because AFUE enables comparisons between various boiler 
types. Fourth, the current use of AFUE allows for comparisons of low-
water-temperature boilers. Fifth, it is not appropriate to use the 
LWTSE rating for compliance with energy efficiency standards, because 
reducing the water temperature would reduce the validity of the testing 
protocol. Overall, ECRI asserted that DOE should not substitute AFUE 
with LWTSE, and instead, ECRI recommended using LWTSE as a supplement 
to an AFUE rating to provide consumers with additional information on 
condition that the information is not confusing to consumers. (ECRI, 6 
at p.2,3)
(4) Burnham Hydronics
    In general, Burnham Hydronics (BH) agreed with PB that the current 
test procedure underestimates boiler efficiency in low-temperature 
applications, but it stated that all condensing boilers are 
disadvantaged in this way, so there should be no waiver. Further, BH 
opined that if a waiver were granted, there would not be a 
proliferation of waivers from the two manufacturers of oil-fired 
boilers, but there would be a proliferation of waivers from the more 
than twenty manufacturers of gas-fired boilers. BH stated its belief 
that the current test procedure overestimates the efficiency of boilers 
that are used in baseboard heating systems, and underestimates the 
efficiency of boilers used in condensing systems. BH asserted that 
there are no other metrics that can be used to measure the performance 
of low-water-temperature boilers used with baseboard heating systems, 
and that it is not appropriate to use a test procedure for LWTSE to 
meet established energy efficiency standards. As a minimum, BH reasoned 
that the current test procedure puts all condensing boiler 
manufacturers on a level playing field. Lastly, BH commented that DOE 
could prescribe LWTSE for low-water-temperature boilers, but only 
through the rulemaking process. (BH, 3 at p.1,2)
(5) Brookhaven National Laboratory
    Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) commented that the current 
AFUE test procedure for boilers specifies supply and return water 
temperatures at 140 [deg]F and 120 [deg]F, respectively. This return 
water temperature is specified both for condensing and non-condensing 
boilers. At this return water temperature, BNL stated that a gas-fired 
boiler can condense, but an oil-fired boiler will not. Furthermore, due 
to the lower water vapor content and lower latent heat loss, an oil-
fired boiler will achieve higher efficiency than a gas-fired boiler 
under non-condensing conditions with the same excess air and flue gas 
temperature. (BNL, 10 at p. 1)
    BNL stated its understanding that actual boiler temperatures can 
vary considerably in the field, and that the temperature in a 
particular system can be affected by controls, including outdoor reset 
controls. According to BNL, studies have shown that outdoor reset 
controls can enable condensing oil-fired boilers to operate in a 
condensing mode for most of the heating season, even when used with 
baseboard radiators. (BNL, 10 at p. 1)
    In response to DOE's request for comments on other metrics that can 
be considered for low-water-temperature boilers used with baseboard 
heating systems, BNL addressed controls that provide variable water 
temperature. BNL stated that the ASHRAE Special Products Committee 155 
is developing a test method for commercial boilers that includes the 
effects of controls and variable water temperatures, which would result 
in an ``Application Seasonal Efficiency'' where controls, oversize 
features, and multiple boiler options can be selected to evaluate 
performance in a particular building. In addition, BNL commented that 
the method for ``Determination of Boiler Performance for Low Water

[[Page 25232]]

Temperature Applications,'' defined an appendix to the public review 
draft ASHRAE Standard 103, ``Method of Testing Annual Fuel Utilization 
Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,'' was developed 
only for information and in particular for low temperature 
applications, such as radiant floor heating. BNL stated that this 
optional methodology uses supply and return water temperatures that are 
low enough to allow for condensing both in oil- and gas-fired boilers, 
but because this methodology uses a fixed-temperature water supply, it 
does not apply to a system with a variable temperature water supply. 
(BNL, 10 at p. 1, 2)
(6) Quincy Hydronic Technology, Inc.
    Quincy Hydronic Technology, Inc. (QHT) strongly opposed granting a 
waiver to PB, arguing that it would be unfair to manufacturers that 
produce high-efficiency boilers which meet the required AFUE levels. 
Moreover, QHT objected to the AFUE rating system generally and asserted 
that it is not only flawed, but penalizes high-efficiency products. QHT 
cited examples of its B-10 boilers, wall-mounting gas boilers, and 
flexible cast iron boilers that essentially reduce fuel consumption and 
are more efficient because of innovative designs, but such benefits 
cannot be demonstrated through the AFUE test procedure. QHT indicated 
that, based on homeowner feedback, AFUE ratings fail consumers when 
making purchasing decisions. QHT opined that if PB were to receive a 
waiver, then DOE should expect requests for waivers from many 
manufacturers. QHT argued that DOE should revise the current test 
procedure so that it better reflects the performance boilers can 
achieve in actual field use and to make AFUE more meaningful. (QHT, 5 
at p. 1, 2)
(7) LAARS Heating Systems Company
    LAARS Heating Systems Company (LHSC) opposed granting a waiver to 
PB for its line of PO models of oil-fired boilers. According to LHSC, 
the change that PB requests for inlet and outlet temperatures from the 
levels currently specified in ASHRAE Standard 103-1993 (i.e., from 120 
[deg]F/140 [deg]F to 90 [deg]F/110 [deg]F) would increase the rated 
AFUE for these products, as it would for most other gas-fired and oil-
fired boilers, and in particular condensing boilers. Further, if a new 
test procedure methodology is provided by waiver for only the PB 
products, then consumers would not be able to make reliable comparisons 
of AFUE ratings with the product lines of other manufacturers. 
Accordingly, LHSC argued that any change in the current test procedure 
should be industry-wide. (LHSC, 11 at p. 1)
    In response to DOE's questions, LHSC commented that the current 
test procedure is not materially inaccurate, but it is designed for a 
single set of operating conditions and measures efficiency at that 
point, to enable consumers to compare data across available products. 
Also, LHSC reasoned that the test procedure is appropriate for boilers 
used with baseboard convector systems that are typically designed for 
180 [deg]F supply/160 [deg]F return temperatures, which would result in 
slightly different installed operating efficiencies than rated AFUE. 
LHSC observed that existing standards, codes, and other regulatory 
requirements rely on the current test procedures for AFUE, so providing 
a unique set of testing requirements through waiver would give PB an 
unfair competitive advantage in meeting such requirements. In addition, 
AFUE is the only metric for measuring boiler performance, regardless of 
boiler or type of heating system that uses gas-fired or oil-fired 
boilers, and introducing other ratings would cause confusion in the 
marketplace. LHSC opined that using the alternative test procedure for 
ratings and representations, as proposed by PB, would artificially 
raise the ratings for products made by PB over the boiler products of 
other manufacturers that test for AFUE under the current test 
procedures. Nevertheless, LHSC asserted that DOE should review and seek 
comments on potential changes to ASHRAE Standard 103 and consider 
adoption of appropriate amendments to the test procedure suitable for 
implementation on an industry-wide basis. (LHSC, 11 at p. 2)

Response to Comments and DOE Determination

    Regarding the responses received to the above questions raised by 
DOE and other issues presented by commenters, DOE offers the following 
discussion.
    First, DOE asked whether the currently-prescribed test procedures 
may evaluate the PO-series basic model of oil-fired boiler manufactured 
by PB in a manner so unrepresentative of its true energy consumption 
characteristics as to provide materially inaccurate data. Interested 
parties commented that although the current test procedure measures 
efficiency at a single operating point under steady-state conditions, 
it nevertheless underestimates boiler efficiency in low-temperature 
applications, and in some cases penalizes high-efficiency designs. Two 
interested parties objected to the current test procedure because it 
does not consider the benefits that electronic controls (such as an 
outdoor temperature reset feature that can adjust boiler output 
temperature to meet a particular heating need) may have on overall 
system efficiency, nor does the current test procedure allow for 
measuring boiler efficiency when it is fully condensing.
    DOE generally divides products for standard-setting purposes into 
product classes by type of energy used, capacity, or other performance-
related feature affecting energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In 
the case of residential boilers, DOE has established product classes 
based on fuel type, including gas-fired and oil-fired units. 10 CFR 
430.32(e)(2).
    DOE understands that the current test procedure, at 10 CFR 
430.23(n)(2) and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, measures AFUE 
at steady-state operating conditions under certain supply and return 
water temperatures. The test procedure for all oil-fired boilers, 
regardless of manufacturer and across the entire range of efficiencies, 
was developed to provide a reasonable interpretation to the consumer of 
the annual fuel utilization efficiency. In order to do this, DOE 
requires testing at specific incoming and exiting water temperatures to 
provide a fair comparison for boilers offered for sale and to minimize 
testing burden on manufacturers. This enables consumers to make 
comparisons among various gas-fired or oil-fired boilers all operating 
under the same operating test condition.
    While DOE acknowledges that there are certain design features that 
could enhance efficiency which may not be captured by the current test 
procedure and statutory metric, one option would be for DOE to consider 
test procedure revisions in the future, which consider variations to 
the water temperatures experienced by different systems. PB did not 
provide any data supplementing their claims to show how the AFUE is 
impacted by varying water temperatures. In addition, PB also did not 
provide any data which would give DOE an indication of the proportion 
of time that the boiler spends operating at various water temperatures 
throughout the year. (Note: DOE realizes such data would be location 
and installation dependent.) Given that the statutory metric is AFUE, 
the current test procedure adequately measures that metric.
    When asked if there would be a proliferation of petitions for 
waiver if PB were granted a waiver, interested parties that commented 
on this issue

[[Page 25233]]

predicted that there would be some petitions for waiver from 
manufacturers of oil-fired boilers, and more so from manufacturers of 
gas-fired boilers. In light of the above comments, DOE understands that 
there would likely be many petitions for waiver from the prescribed 
test procedures under 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2). However, such considerations 
do not affect whether PB's Petition for Waiver should be granted on its 
merits.
    DOE believes that an alternative test procedure that is based on 
the informative appendix F of draft ASHRAE Standard 103-2003 could 
provide consumers with additional information about system efficiency 
under various operating conditions in the field, such as those used in 
radiant heating applications. However, as mentioned in comments by BNL, 
the procedure provided in appendix F does not address fully the more 
complicated issue of variable temperature controls.
    DOE asked about the appropriateness of its test procedure as it 
relates to boilers used with baseboard systems. Interested parties 
generally commented that the current test procedure is appropriate for 
boilers used with baseboard convector heating systems. It does not 
provide materially inaccurate comparative data, but is designed around 
a single set of operating conditions, thereby enabling consumers to 
compare data and make valid comparisons between products. DOE asked 
whether there are other metrics that can be used to assess the 
performance of low-water-temperature boilers used with baseboard 
heating systems. Interested parties generally commented that the 
current test procedure is appropriate, because it allows relative 
comparisons between low-temperature boilers, and that creating other 
ratings could cause confusion in the marketplace. DOE agrees that the 
current test procedure allows for an effective means for relative 
comparisons because the test establishes a single-point operating 
condition for all boilers regardless of how the boilers are used in 
actual field installations. For the same reason however, DOE is 
sensitive to the fact that the test procedure cannot capture the 
variance in performance of boilers which might be capable of different 
ratings when tested at other operating conditions (or tested with 
certain controls). By requiring testing under a specific set of 
operating conditions, DOE's test procedure allows for reasonable 
representations to be made of the efficiency, irrespective of 
efficiency at other conditions or manufacturer.
    In response to DOE's request for comments on whether it would be 
appropriate for PB to use an alternative test procedure for its 
ratings, representations, and compliance with energy efficiency 
standards, building codes, and other regulatory requirements, 
interested parties generally opined that it would not be appropriate to 
use a test procedure that measures LWTSE to meet established energy 
efficiency standards or regulations that are based on AFUE. Further, 
because such regulations rely on the current test procedures for AFUE, 
commenters argued that providing a unique set of testing requirements 
would give one manufacturer an unfair competitive advantage in meeting 
such requirements. Further, DOE understands that the variance in 
operating conditions, which impact the efficiency of the boiler, are 
not manufacturer-specific or model-specific. If DOE were to consider 
any changes, it would do so in a separate proceeding. DOE agrees that 
using LWTSE would be inappropriate because AFUE is the established 
metric, and, in addition, not deviating from the current AFUE metric 
and test procedure would maintain a method for consistent and 
equivalent comparisons of all boilers.
    As to whether DOE should prescribe a test procedure and establish 
levels for LWTSE, DOE did not receive specific comments on the 
technical merits of PB's requested alternative test procedure as a 
proposed amendment to 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N--Uniform 
Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and 
Boilers. 71 FR 46460, 46461 (August 14, 2006). Instead, interested 
parties commented that if DOE prescribes a test procedure and standard 
for LWTSE, it should be through the rulemaking process, include the 
opportunity for public comments, and be applied on an industry-wide 
basis. Two interested parties generally addressed the test method 
defined in appendix F of the public review draft ASHRAE Standard 103, 
and one interested party said that the method of test was developed for 
low-water-temperature applications, such as radiant floor heating 
systems, but for information purposes only. (BNL, 10 at p.2) The other 
interested party asserted that DOE should seek comments on changes to 
ASHRAE Standard 103, and make appropriate changes to the DOE test 
procedures. (LHSC, 11 at p.2) DOE believes the most appropriate 
approach presently is to not propose an amendment prescribing the 
alternative test procedure and establishing standard levels based on 
LWTSE. However, DOE is sensitive to the potential issue of its current 
test procedure possibly underrating the efficiency of some boilers used 
in condensing modes/systems. Accordingly, DOE is receptive to any 
comments and suggestions for workable solutions during any future DOE 
activity aimed at revising the test procedure. DOE believes that a full 
understanding of the issue and identification of the appropriate 
approaches to remedying issues can only be accomplished through a 
rulemaking process.
    DOE appreciates all of the comments it received, which have helped 
DOE reach a more fully informed decision regarding the PB Petition. DOE 
recognizes the concern raised by some commenters that the current DOE 
test procedure may not equally estimate the performance of condensing 
boilers and non-condensing boilers, and some commenters believe that 
the LWTSE test procedure would better characterize the efficiency of 
condensing boilers. DOE believes, however, that the LWTSE test 
procedure, which specifies lower fixed test temperatures only, may not 
be comprehensive enough to either capture or sufficiently represent the 
performance of condensing systems equipped with certain controls (i.e., 
temperature reset controls) that vary system operating temperatures. A 
revised test procedure that both accommodates lower water temperatures 
and captures the potential benefits of control strategies may be 
required to wholly and accurately characterize the spectrum of 
available boiler products and operating conditions. Even though DOE 
understands that there could be a variety of operating conditions 
experienced in the field, PB has not shown that the current AFUE test 
cannot be applied to these models. In addition, the test procedures are 
to provide reasonable efficiency ratings across the range of covered 
oil-fired boilers, and DOE was not provided details as to why DOE's 
test procedure does not accurately capture the energy efficiency of the 
range of products currently sold.
    In light of the above, DOE has determined the following in response 
to the PB Petition for Waiver. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6291(22)(A), the 
``efficiency descriptor'' for furnaces (of which boilers are one type) 
is annual fuel utilization efficiency. Because the efficiency metric 
for those products are set by statute, DOE does not have authority to 
substitute other metrics to rate the efficiency of residential furnaces 
and boilers. The DOE test

[[Page 25234]]

procedure prescribed at 10 CFR 430.23(n) and contained in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix N require AFUE testing of boilers with an 
inlet water temperature of 140 [deg]F and an outlet water temperature 
of 120 [deg]F. DOE could, however, consider modifications to the test 
conditions in the AFUE test as part of a separate rulemaking proceeding 
if DOE had data showing different test conditions were more 
appropriate.
    Even though PB's Petition for Waiver requested permission to report 
information supplemental to AFUE rather than to only report different 
data expected to be more representative than AFUE, PB asserted that the 
DOE test procedure generates results that are so unrepresentative of 
the true energy consumption characteristics of its basic models as to 
provide materially inaccurate comparative data.
    After subsequent inquiry concerning PB's assertion and in light of 
the above, DOE has determined that the PB boilers in question can and 
do operate at the higher water temperatures specified in the DOE test 
procedure. PB did not state that its units are incapable of operating 
at higher water temperatures; DOE understands the units are neither 
shipped with an add-on component nor equipped with an integral part 
that precludes operation at higher water temperatures. As stated 
earlier in this Decision and Order, system water temperatures are a 
function of many factors unrelated to the unit itself and can range 
significantly. In the absence of outdoor temperature reset, the 
incoming water temperatures can vary greatly depending on heating load, 
installation, and other factors. Thus, because the PB boilers can 
operate at the temperatures specified in the existing DOE test 
procedures, it is appropriate to test at those temperatures when rating 
the unit's AFUE. Testing in this manner provides a steady-state test 
condition that generates results that can be compared across a range of 
products and manufacturers. PB has provided no evidence to suggest that 
the existing test procedure generates results that are either 
inaccurate or are not representative when testing is conducted at the 
higher temperatures specified in the test procedure. Therefore, a 
waiver is not appropriate, which in turn provides no basis for granting 
an alternative test procedure.
    The PB Petition for Waiver has raised a legitimate issue of whether 
the DOE test procedure would benefit from amendments to test and rate 
the performance of boilers at lower water input and output 
temperatures, as well as the efficiency effects of various controls for 
those products. PB has suggested that results generated at lower water 
temperature conditions would be more typical of the specified models' 
performance, although it did not state that its products would be 
unable to be tested using DOE's test procedure or to meet the energy 
conservation standard when testing is conducted at the higher water 
temperatures specified in the existing DOE test procedure for 
residential boilers. However, given their potential complexity, DOE 
believes that such issues should be addressed in the context of a 
rulemaking with the opportunity for public notice and comment. The 
results of such rulemaking would apply on an industry-wide basis, 
thereby resulting in no advantage or disadvantage to any particular 
manufacturer. DOE may consider potential amendments to the test 
procedure regarding testing the energy efficiency of condensing boilers 
at lower water temperatures as part of a future rulemaking.
    In the meantime, DOE points out that PB and similarly situated 
manufacturers may make supplemental statements regarding the energy 
efficiency of their boilers (e.g., on marketing materials, Web sites), 
provided that they continue to disclose the AFUE result generated using 
the DOE test procedure. Such supplemental results must not mislead the 
consumer and must be clearly distinguished from the AFUE results. With 
that said, DOE notes that it has examined ASHRAE Standard 103-2003 
(Public Review Draft) and believes it to be generally adequate for the 
supplemental testing purposes envisioned by PB, provided that the 
significance of LWTSE results are explained and clearly differentiated 
from AFUE results, so as to prevent consumer confusion in the 
marketplace. Since LWTSE test conditions promote condensing operation, 
DOE would caution, in the interest of consumer safety, that units 
tested accordingly, and advertised with a LWTSE, be appropriately 
designed or equipped to contend with potential corrosion issues which 
are typically associated with condensates produced from low-temperature 
flue gases. Accordingly, nothing currently prevents PB (or any other 
manufacturer) from reporting low-water-temperature test results for the 
boilers in question, along with the required AFUE results in marketing 
or other informative materials for consumers. DOE suggests any 
manufacturer that wishes to show the LWTSE values in addition to the 
AFUE values clearly distinguish the differences between the two tests, 
including the different operating characteristics, for consumers. DOE 
notes, however, that such supplemental information could not be placed 
on the product's Energy Guide label, because the FTC's regulations 
limit such information to results generated under the DOE test 
procedure.
Consultations With Other Agencies
    DOE consulted with the FTC staff concerning the PB Petition for 
Waiver. The FTC staff did not have any objections to the decision to 
deny a waiver to PB.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of all the materials submitted by PB 
and consultation with the FTC staff, for the reasons above, it is 
ordered that:
    (1) The ``Petition for Waiver'' filed by PB Heat, LLC (PB) (Case 
No. WAV-0140) is hereby denied for the reasons discussed above; and
    (2) PB shall be required to test or rate the AFUE of its 
residential PO-50, PO-60, PO-63, and PO-73 oil-fired boilers on the 
basis of the current test procedure contained in 10 CFR 430.23(n) and 
10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N.
    PB may conduct LWTSE testing and report the results in product 
literature (other than supplementation of the certification label), 
provided that the AFUE test results generated under the DOE test 
procedure continue to be disclosed and that the LWTSE results provide 
reasonable, clear, and distinguishable representations of those results 
to the consumer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 30, 2010.

Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary,
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-10815 Filed 5-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>