# Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-00040 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** January 15, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 2628 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024] RIN 1904-AC79 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnaces and Boilers AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) amends its test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers established under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This rulemaking will fulfill DOE's obligation to review its test procedures for covered products at least once every seven years. The revisions include: Clarifying the components included in the burner electrical power input term (PE); adopting a method for determining whether a minimum draft factor can be applied, and how the conditions are to be verified; allowing optional measurement of condensate collection during establishment of steady state; updating references to the applicable installation and operating manual and providing clarifications when the installation and operation (I&O) manual does not specify test setup; clarifying the testing of units intended to be installed without a return duct; adopting a provision clarifying the testing of multi-position units; revising the required reporting precision for annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE); and adopting a verification method for determining whether a boiler incorporates an automatic means for adjusting water temperature and whether this design requirement functions as required. DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 16, 2016. The final rule changes will be mandatory for representations made on or after July 13, 2016. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of February 16, 2016. ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure. A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this final rule on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, 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) 586-6590. Email: Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov. Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: peter.cochran@hq.doe.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference into part 430 the following industry standard: ASTM D2156-09 (Reapproved 2013) (“ASTM D2156R13”), Standard Test Method for Smoke Density in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate Fuels, approved October 1, 2013. Copies of ASTM D2156R13 can be obtained from ASTM. American Society of Testing and Materials, ASTM Headquarters, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (877) 909-2786 or (610) 832-9585, or by going to http://www.astm.org. See section IV.M for further discussion of this standard. Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Summary of the Final Rule III. Discussion A. Products Within Scope of the Final Rule B. General Comments 1. Statutory Deadline 2. Simultaneous Changes in Test Procedure and Standards 3. Lack of Data Availability C. Proposed Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 D. Test Procedure Amendments 1. Electrical Power of Components 2. Smoke Stick Test for Determining Use of Minimum Default Off-Cycle and Power Burner Draft Factors 3. Condensate Collection During the Establishment of Steady State Conditions 4. Installation and Operation Manual Reference 5. Duct Work for Units That Are Installed Without a Return Duct 6. Testing Requirements for Multi-Position Configurations 7. AFUE Reporting Precision 8. Definitions and Other Changes E. Other Test Procedure Considerations 1. Room Ambient Air Temperature and Humidity Ranges 2. Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Metrics 3. Oversize Factor Value 4. Alternative Methods for Furnace/Boiler Efficiency Determination 5. Test Method for Combination Appliance F. Test Burden G. Measured Energy Use H. Certification and Enforcement 1. Verification Test for Automatic Means for Adjusting the Water Temperature in Boilers 2. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedure IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary I. Authority and Background Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (“EPCA” or “the Act”), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. 2 These products include residential furnaces and boilers, the subject of this notice. 3 1 For editorial reasons, Part B was codified as Part A in the U.S. Code. 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (Apr. 30, 2015). 3 Under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5), the statute establishes “furnaces” as covered products, and 42 U.S.C. 6291(23) defines furnaces as inclusive of boilers. Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program generally consists of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The 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, and (2) making other representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures that DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA provides, in relevant part, that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall 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 shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) Finally, in any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the product's measured energy efficiency as determined under the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) EISA 2007 amended EPCA to require that, at least once every 7 years, DOE must review test procedures for all covered products and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) or publish a notice in the Federal Register of any determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) Under this requirement, DOE must review the test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers not later than December 19, 2014 ( i.e., 7 years after the publication of EISA 2007 on December 19, 2007). DOE's current energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and boilers are expressed as minimum annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE). AFUE is an annualized fuel efficiency metric that accounts for fuel consumption in active, standby, and off modes. The following discussion provides a brief history of the rulemakings underlying the existing test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers. The existing DOE test procedure for determining the AFUE of residential furnaces and boilers is located at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers. The existing DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers was established by a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 12, 1997, and it incorporates by reference the American National Standards Institute/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 103-1993, Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103-1993). 62 FR 26140, 26157 (incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 430.3(f)(10)). On October 14, 1997, DOE published an interim final rule in the Federal Register to revise a provision concerning the insulation of the flue collector box in order to ensure the updated test procedure would not affect the measured AFUE of existing furnaces and boilers. 62 FR 53508. This interim final rule was adopted without change in a final rule published in the Federal Register on February 24, 1998. 63 FR 9390. On October 20, 2010, DOE amended its test procedure for furnaces and boilers to establish a method for measuring the electrical energy use in standby mode and off mode for gas- fired and oil-fired furnaces and boilers, as required by EISA 2007. 75 FR 64621. These test procedure amendments incorporated by reference, and were based primarily on, provisions of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 62301 (First Edition), Household electrical appliances—Measurement of standby power. On December 31, 2012, DOE published a final rule (December 2012 final rule) in the Federal Register that updated the incorporation by reference of the standby mode and off mode test procedure provisions to refer to the latest edition of IEC Standard 62301 (Second Edition). 77 FR 76831. On July 10, 2013, DOE published a final rule (July 2013 final rule) in the Federal Register that amended its test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers by adopting needed equations that allow manufacturers the option to omit the heat-up and cool-down tests and still generate a valid AFUE measurement. 78 FR 41265. On August 30, 2013, DOE published a correction to the July 2013 final rule that corrected errors in the redesignations of affected subsections within section 10 of appendix N. 78 FR 53625. On January 4, 2013, DOE initiated this rulemaking to examine all aspects of the DOE test procedure by publishing a request for information (RFI) (January 2013 RFI) in the Federal Register . 78 FR 675. On March 11, 2015, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (March 2015 NOPR) in the Federal Register to amend the test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers. 80 FR 12876. In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to amend the residential furnaces and boilers test procedure by incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 (ASHRAE 103-2007) in place of ASHRAE 103-1993, which currently is referenced in the existing test procedure. In addition, the March 2015 NOPR proposed to adopt modifications that would establish revised test procedures for two-stage and modulating products, as well as for boilers with long post-purge times that would not otherwise be included in the incorporation by reference of ASHRAE 103-2007. DOE also proposed to amend the test procedure to: (1) Allow the measurement of condensate during the establishment of steady-state rather than require an additional 30 minutes of testing after steady-state conditions are established; (2) revise annual electricity consumption equations to account for additional electrical components; (3) revise test procedure references to “manufacturer recommendations” or “manufacturer's instructions” that do not explicitly identify the source of the recommendations or instructions; (4) include a test protocol for determining the functionality of the automatic means for adjusting water temperature; (5) include a test method to indicate the absence or presence of air flow to determine whether the minimum default draft factor may be used; (6) revise the required reporting precision for AFUE; (7) specify testing requirements for units that are installed without a return duct; and (8) specify testing requirements for units with multi-position configurations. 80 FR 12876. II. Summary of the Final Rule The final rule amends the existing DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers to improve the consistency and accuracy of test results generated using the DOE test procedure and to reduce test burden. In particular, these modifications include: (1) Clarifying the definition of the electrical power term PE; (2) adopting a smoke stick test for determining use of minimum default draft factors; (3) allowing for the measurement of condensate under steady-state conditions; (4) referencing the manufacturer's installation and operation (I&O) manual and providing clarifications when the I&O manual does not specify test setup; (5) specifying ductwork requirements for units that are installed without a return duct; (6) specifying testing requirements for units with multi-position configurations; and (7) revising the AFUE reporting precision. DOE has also revised the definitions of several terms in the test procedure and added an enforcement provision to provide a method of test for DOE to determine compliance with the automatic means design requirement mandated by EISA 2007. DOE has withdrawn or modified all test procedure amendment proposals in the March 2015 NOPR for which stakeholders expressed concern regarding the effect of the proposed amendments on the measured energy efficiency of residential furnaces and boilers when compared to the current test procedure. In particular, as discussed in section III.C, DOE has withdrawn its proposal to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 103-2007. III. Discussion The following sections discuss the products within the scope of this rulemaking, the test procedure amendments, other test procedure considerations, test burden, measured energy use, and changes to certification and enforcement provisions. In response to the March 2015 NOPR, the following twelve interested parties submitted written comments: The American Gas Association (AGA); the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI); Burnham Holdings, Inc. (Burnham); Carrier Corporation (Carrier); John Cockerill (Cockerill); Goodman Global, Inc. (Goodman); Lennox Industries Inc. (Lennox); Lochinvar, LLC (Lochinvar); Rheem Manufacturing Company (Rheem); Ingersoll Rand Residential Solutions (Ingersoll Rand); Laclede Group; and Weil-McLain. Interested parties provided comments on a range of issues, including those DOE identified in the March 2015 NOPR, as well as issues related to the proposed test procedure changes. The issues on which DOE received comments, as well as DOE's responses to those comments and the resulting changes to the test procedure proposals presented in the NOPR, are discussed in the subsequent sections. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record. 4 4 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to amend the test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers. (Docket No. EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024, which is maintained at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2012-BT-TP-0024 ). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). A. Products Within Scope of the Final Rule The test procedure amendments apply to products that meet the definitions for residential furnaces and boilers (see DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2). A “furnace” is defined as a product that: (1) Utilizes only single-phase electric current, or single-phase electric current or direct current (DC) in conjunction with natural gas, propane, or home heating oil; (2) is designed to be the principal heating source for the living space of a residence; (3) is not contained within the same cabinet with a central air conditioner whose rated cooling capacity is above 65,000 Btu per hour; (4) is an electric central furnace, electric boiler, forced-air central furnace, gravity central furnace, or low pressure steam or hot water boiler; and (5) has a heat input rate of less than 300,000 Btu per hour for electric boilers and low pressure steam or hot water boilers and less than 225,000 Btu per hour for forced-air central furnaces, gravity central furnaces, and electric central furnaces. 5 5 The definition of “furnace” currently in the CFR at 10 CFR 430.2 mistakenly repeats the terms “gravity central furnaces, and electric central furnaces” at the end of the definition. In this final rule, DOE is correcting this error to remove the duplicative language. The individual products within the scope of this test procedure and the definition of each (see DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.2) are listed below: (1) Electric boiler means an electrically powered furnace designed to supply low pressure steam or hot water for space heating application. A low pressure steam boiler operates at or below 15 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) steam pressure; a hot water boiler operates at or below 160 psig water pressure and 250 °F water temperature. (2) Electric central furnace means a furnace that is designed to supply heat through a system of ducts with air as the heating medium, in which heat generated by one or more electric resistance heating elements is circulated by means of a fan or blower. (3) Forced-air central furnace means a furnace that burns gas or oil and is designed to supply heat through a system of ducts with air as the heating medium. The heat generated by combustion of gas or oil is transferred to the air within a casing by conduction through heat exchange surfaces and is circulated through the duct system by means of a fan or blower. (4) Gravity central furnace means a gas-fueled furnace which depends primarily on natural convection for circulation of heated air and which is designed to be used in conjunction with a system of ducts. (5) Low pressure steam or hot water boiler is an electric, gas, or oil-burning furnace designed to supply low pressure steam or hot water for space heating applications. A low pressure steam boiler operates at or below 15 psig steam pressure; a hot water boiler operates at or below 160 psig water pressure and 250 °F water temperature. (6) Mobile home furnace means a direct vent furnace that is designed for use only in mobile homes. (7) Outdoor furnace or boiler is a furnace or boiler normally intended for installation out-of-doors or in an unheated space (such as an attic or a crawl space). (8) Weatherized warm air furnace or boiler means a furnace or boiler designed for installation outdoors, approved for resistance to wind, rain, and snow, and supplied with its own venting system. B. General Comments Stakeholders submitted general comments regarding the test procedure and parallel energy conservation standards rulemaking timeline and the availability of data related to this proceeding. DOE discusses and responds to these comments in the following subsections. 1. Statutory Deadline As noted in section I, EISA 2007 requires that DOE must review test procedures for all covered products and amend the test procedures or publish a notice in the Federal Register of any determination not to amend test procedures at least once every seven years. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)). AHRI asserted that the start date for the obligation to review efficiency test procedures at least once every seven years has been reset by the July 2013 Final Rule. And, therefore, by its estimation, DOE has approximately five more years to review and amend, as needed, the test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers. AHRI added that this would be ample time to manage DOE's rulemaking activities such that proposed revisions to efficiency standards and test procedures are not considered concurrently. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 2) DOE notes that the July 2013 Final Rule was limited in scope and only intended to remedy a specific concern articulated by stakeholders. Specifically, the July 2013 Final Rule adopted needed equations to allow manufacturers the option to omit the heat up and cool down tests and still generate a valid AFUE measurement for certain condensing products. 78 FR 41265, 41266. DOE considers the seven year look back provision to include a comprehensive review of the entire test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A)) DOE did not conduct a comprehensive review for the July 2013 Final Rule. Furthermore, DOE stated in the July 2013 Final Rule that it was initiating a separate rulemaking that was broader in scope to examine all aspects of the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers. 78 FR 41265, 41266. Therefore, DOE maintains that the July 2013 final rule did not meet the requirements outlined in 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). In contrast, DOE has conducted a comprehensive review as part of the current rulemaking, which satisfies the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A). 2. Simultaneous Changes in Test Procedure and Standards Several stakeholders cited legal and practical concerns regarding the timing of proposed revisions to the test procedures and standards for residential furnaces and boilers. Stakeholders requested that DOE delay any further work on the rulemakings to amend efficiency standards for these products until after the finalization of the test procedure. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 1; Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) AHRI stated that it believes the non-final status of the test procedure inhibits stakeholders' fair evaluation of the standard. AHRI stressed the importance of having a known efficiency test procedure. AHRI noted that when a test procedure is in flux, manufacturers must spend resources collecting potentially unusable data which undermines their ability to provide input on the proposed efficiency standards. Similarly, AHRI added that when a test procedure is not finalized, a manufacturer has no way of determining whether the test procedure will affect its ability to comply with a proposed revised standard. AHRI noted that DOE is required to give stakeholders the opportunity to provide meaningful comments and asserted that the joint proposal of test procedures and standards diminishes that opportunity (see 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2), 6306(a)). (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 1) In response to AHRI, DOE does not believe that the timing of the test procedure and standards rulemakings has negatively impacted stakeholders' ability to provide meaningful comment on this test procedure rulemaking. DOE allowed four months for public comment on the test procedure NOPR. Additionally, DOE's original proposal included an update to the latest industry standard ( i.e., ASHARE 103-2007), which was developed by a consensus-based ASHRAE process, and was released in 2007. DOE believes that industry was involved in developing that standard and had experience with the changes in the 2007 version of ASHRAE Standard 103. Lastly, stakeholders provided detailed, insightful comments on all aspects of the proposal, including submitting select test data in response to DOE's proposal, which shows that industry was able to carefully consider the proposed method and how it compared to the current Federal method of test. In addition, DOE has taken AHRI's concerns regarding the potential impact of test procedure changes on measured energy use into account in its determinations of which test procedure proposals to finalize in this rulemaking. AHRI and Goodman stated that by publishing the March 2015 NOPR within weeks of the proposed efficiency standard, DOE has failed to abide by the procedures located at 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (7)(b). (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 33 at p. 2) AHRI stated that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires agencies to abide by their policies and procedures, especially where those rules have a substantive effect. AHRI asserted that the non-final test procedure has the substantive effect of increasing costs to stakeholders and diminishing their ability to comment on the efficiency standards. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 2; Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 7) In response to the comments from AHRI and Goodman asserting that DOE has failed to abide by its procedures at 10 CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A (7)(b), DOE notes that appendix A establishes procedures, interpretations, and policies to guide DOE in the consideration and promulgation of new or revised appliance efficiency standards under EPCA. (See section 1 of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A) Those procedures are a general guide to the steps DOE typically follows in promulgating energy conservation standards. The guidance recognizes that DOE can and will, on occasion, deviate from the typical process. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that there is no basis to either: (1) Delay the final rules adopting standards for residential furnaces and boilers; or (2) suspend the test procedure rulemaking until the standards rulemaking has been completed. Ingersoll Rand and Goodman stated their concern that two-stage, condensing furnaces that would meet the March 12, 2015 furnace proposed rule of 92-percent AFUE under the current test procedure would not meet the 92-percent AFUE standard under the proposed DOE test procedure. Ingersoll Rand noted that the two test procedures were assumed to be identical in the March 12, 2015 residential furnace standard NOPR technical support document. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 2; Goodman, No. 33 at p. 1) Similarly, Weil-McLain suggested that the uncertainty caused by the simultaneous test procedure rulemaking amplifies venting issues present in the residential boiler standards NOPR. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 3) In response to Ingersoll Rand and Goodman, as discussed in section III.C, DOE declines to adopt the latest industry standard of ASHRAE 103-2007, which is the only amendment proposed in the March 2015 NOPR that manufacturers claimed could alter the AFUE for two-stage and modulating condensing products. In response to Weil-McLain, DOE notes that none of the proposed test procedure provisions that had the potential to result in a change in measured AFUE are adopted in this test procedure final rule, as discussed in section III.G. 3. Lack of Data Availability In response the March 2015 NOPR, interested parties submitted comments regarding lack of data availability. For example, the March 2015 NOPR included several references to a testing report. 80 FR 12876, 12878. Burnham stated that in spite of requests from commenters, the testing report was not available in the public docket as of July 8, 2015. Burnham added that the lack of access to the testing report has made it impossible to properly review the impact of ambient conditions on AFUE during the public comment period. Burnham requested that the comment period be extended to allow comment on this document which should be disclosed immediately. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 7) DOE made the test results available during the test procedure public meeting. 6 The slide deck presented at the public meeting was posted to the docket on March 26, 2015, along with the transcript of the public meeting. (Public Meeting Presentation Slides, No. 21) Therefore, stakeholders were presented with an opportunity to review and discuss the data with the Department at the public meeting and to review the results during the comment period, which was open until July 10, 2015. 6 Test results included in the slide deck for the public meeting include those for proposed changes related to AFUE determination for two-stage/ modulating products, measurement of condensate under steady state conditions, electric consumption of components, and verification test for automatic means for adjusting the water temperature in boilers. DOE did not provide test results for ambient conditions or other testing for which no changes were proposed in the NOPR. C. Proposed Incorporation by Reference of ASHRAE Standard 103-2007 In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed amendments to reduce variability, eliminate ambiguity, and address discrepancies between the test procedure and actual field conditions, and DOE requested comment on its proposals. 80 FR 12876, 12902. One of these proposals was to update its incorporation by reference of the industry test standard ASHRAE 103-1993 to ASHRAE 103-2007. DOE received several comments in response to its proposal to update the incorporation by reference in the DOE test procedure to ASHRAE 103-2007. Lochinvar and AGA responded to the NOPR in favor of adopting ASHRAE 103-2007 provided that DOE make adequate allowances for the resulting test burden and the impact that the change would have on existing efficiency claims. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 1; AGA, No. 27 at p. 4) Similarly, Burnham stated that they are not opposed to the update provided test burden is reduced. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 3) Ingersoll Rand and Rheem stated their support only for certain provisions of ASHRAE 103-2007. Specifically, Ingersoll Rand supported requiring only reduced fire testing (and not high-fire testing) when the calculated balance point temperature is less than or equal to five degrees. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 4) Rheem stated their support for the elimination of table 8 and the average design heating requirements in ASHRAE 103-1993. (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 2) Lennox and Weil-McLain suggested DOE not update to ASHRAE 103-2007 at this time. (Lennox, No. 32 at p. 2; Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 7) AHRI and Weil-McLain suggested that DOE wait to modify the test procedure until ASHRAE 103-2016 is issued. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 8; Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 7) Carrier suggested that DOE not update to ASHRAE 103-2007, but change the AFUE metric for forced-air furnaces to be based on the steady-state operation, as discussed in section III.E.4. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 2) Several commenters suggested that that the updating to ASHRAE 103-2007 would result in more significant changes to AFUE ratings than suggested by DOE in the March 2015 NOPR. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 32 at p. 2; AGA, No. 27 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 36 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 2) Of these commenters, only AHRI provided test data, which indicated small changes in AFUE as a result of changes to the cyclical condensate test for modulating condensing boilers. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 17) Burnham and Ingersoll Rand suggested that the impact to AFUE resulting from the changes in cycle times is still uncertain. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that the effect of this proposed change to the procedure is insignificant. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 2) Ingersoll Rand noted that as a result of adopting ASHRAE 103-2007, two-stage and modulating non-condensing furnaces will have a higher AFUE rating, and condensing furnaces will have lower AFUE ratings. Ingersoll Rand noted that the changes in AFUE are higher than the uncertainty of the test procedure reported by DOE and therefore this change to the test procedure cannot be considered de minimis. Ingersoll Rand also noted that the test results are limited and have high variability. Ingersoll Rand suggested that the change not be adopted until the variability is better understood. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 2) AGA suggested that the Department substantially increase the amount of testing using the modified test procedure to ensure that the resulting efficiency rating for both furnaces and boilers are accurate and repeatable. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 4) Similarly, Ingersoll Rand suggested the calculation to account for post purge times longer than three minutes not be adopted without test data indicating the adjustment to AFUE that would result from this update. Ingersoll Rand stated that without test data they cannot determine if the new readings would be representative of a unit's performance. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 4) In response to the March 2015 NOPR, Ingersoll Rand requested that DOE not adopt the proposed changes to the calculation of annual auxiliary electrical energy consumption (E AE ) caused by the update to ASHRAE 103-2007. Ingersoll Rand stated that the calculation of E AE proposed in the March 2015 NOPR changes the value of E AE substantially from −8.5 percent to +13.5 percent. Ingersoll Rand noted that this change, along with the proposal to include the electrical consumption of additional components is significant enough that all current furnaces would have to be retested and recertified. Ingersoll Rand requested that DOE reconsider its finding that the amended test procedure would have a “ de minimis impact on the products' measured energy use” and instead find that the proposed test procedure amendment has a significant impact on measured electricity consumption. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) Several commenters stated that the changes to AFUE caused by updating to ASHRAE 103-2007 would lead to additional testing burden. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 32 at p. 2; AHRI, No. 36 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the change to use calculated values for t ON and t OFF will at a minimum require retesting for any step-modulating models at the reduced input rate and for many two stage models at both the maximum and reduced input rates. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 4) Given this expected test burden, Lochinvar argued that if DOE is to adopt ASHRAE 103-2007, DOE must declare in writing that products certified according to ASHRAE 103-1993 that were on the market prior to updating the test procedure are not required to be retested and recertified unless the design is changed in a way that affects efficiency. Lochinvar suggested that future audit tests of pre-existing products could still be conducted according to ASHRAE 103-2007 but that manufacturers should not be required to do new tests on existing models for certification reporting to DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS). (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 1) Burnham also commented that their efforts to explore the impact of adoption of ASHRAE 103-2007 have been hampered by the lack of generally available, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) validated software tools for calculating AFUE (and intermediate values) based on ASHRAE 103-2007. Burnham argued that the lack of software is a significant departure from past practice during comparable rulemakings. Burnham also asserted that this constituted a lack of transparency that would violate basic administrative law precepts and would be arbitrary and capricious. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 3) After considering these comments, DOE agrees that further evaluation is needed to determine the impact of adopting ASHRAE 103-2007 on the AFUE ratings of residential furnace and boiler models currently distributed in commerce. As a result, DOE does not adopt ASHRAE 103-2007 in this final rule. Instead, DOE retains the reference in the existing test procedure to ASHRAE 103-1993, both related to AFUE and E AE . However, DOE believes ASHRAE 103-2007 better accounts for the operation of two-stage and modulating equipment and may further evaluate adoption of ASHRAE 103-2007, or a successor standard, in future rulemakings. In addition to retaining the reference to ASHRAE 103-1993, DOE revises the list of excluded ASHRAE 103-1993 sections to reflect test procedure amendments (as discussed in section III.D) and to more accurately identify the excluded sections. DOE does not agree with Burnham's assertion that the lack of an automated software program implementing the equations presented in DOE's proposal hampered stakeholder's ability to comment on the practicability and the impact of the adoption of ASHRAE 103-2007. DOE does not endorse specific calculations tools commonly developed by industry or third-party test laboratories that automate the equations provided in DOE's regulations. Furthermore, DOE does not need to provide software for interested parties to be able to perform the calculations in proposed test procedure amendments and believes the simplified equations provided in the proposed rule can be easily implemented through a desktop-software calculation tool such as a commonly available spreadsheet application. Lastly, DOE disagrees with Burnham's assertion that the proposed rule was not sufficiently clear to provide an opportunity for interested parties to understand the proposal and provide meaningful comment because each of the equations utilized was presented in the regulatory text within the proposed rule in a step-by-step fashion. D. Test Procedure Amendments In response to the March 2015 NOPR, DOE received input on a variety of test procedure issues beyond incorporation of ASHRAE 103-2007, including: (1) Electrical power of additional components; (2) smoke stick test for determining use of minimum default draft factors; (3) measurement of condensate under steady-state conditions; (4) I&O manual reference and proposed clarifications when the I&O manual does not specify test setup; (5) specifying ductwork requirements for units that are installed without a return duct; (6) specifying testing requirements for units with multi-position configurations; (7) AFUE reporting precision; (8) room ambient temperature and humidity ranges; (9) full-fuel-cycle (FFC) energy metrics in the AFUE test; (10) oversize factor values; (11) alternative methods for furnace and boiler efficiency determination; and (12) test method for combination appliances. DOE amends the test procedure for residential furnaces and boilers regarding issues (1)-(7), which are addressed in further detail below. Issues (8)-(12), for which DOE does not amend the test procedure in this final rule, are discussed in section III.E. DOE also received comments on the verification test for automatic means for adjusting water temperature, which are discussed in section III.H.1. 1. Electrical Power of Components In the January 2013 RFI and March 2015 NOPR, DOE noted that the specific method of electrical measurement prescribed in the existing DOE test procedure does not explicitly capture the electrical power associated with all auxiliary components. The method identifies PE as the electrical power used to operate the burner but only explicitly mentions measurements of the power supplied to the power burner motor, the ignition device, and the circulation water pump, but does not explicitly identify other devices that use power during the active mode, such as the gas valve, safety and operating controls, and a secondary pump for boilers ( i.e., boiler pump) used to maintain a minimum flow rate through the boiler heat exchanger, which is most typically associated with condensing boiler designs. 78 FR 675, 678; 80 FR 12876, 12882. In response to the January 2013 RFI, several stakeholders, including Lennox, Rheem, and AHRI, stated that manufacturers already measure all electrical power associated with the additional components DOE listed in the January 2013 RFI. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 12 at p. 10; AHRI, No. 13 at p. 6) Therefore, to clarify which components are included in the power measurements, in the March 2015 NOPR DOE proposed to add two new terms to the calculations of the average annual auxiliary electrical energy consumption (E AE ) to capture the electrical power of the boiler pump (BE S ) and the gas valve and controls (E O ), if present. DOE requested comment on these proposed amendments. 80 FR 12876, 12902. AHRI expressed the view that the proposed changes over-complicate this issue and that the proposed measurements will change the measurement of E AE . AHRI stated that the typical gas burner will not operate unless both the ignition system and gas control ( e.g., automatic valves) are energized, which DOE acknowledges by including the power of the energized electric ignition device in the definition of PE. AHRI stated that the definition of PE should be clarified to include all electrical energy consumption that relates to the functions of igniting and operating the burner during the on cycle. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 5) Burnham supported DOE's proposal to measure all electrical consumption associated with operating the burner (PE), which should include the power consumption of any additional pump which is needed to provide adequate flow through the boiler itself without also providing significant flow through the heating system. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) Lochinvar stated that, in its experience, all electrical power consumption measurements made during an AFUE test are made at the power supply connection to the boiler and account for all auxiliary components. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 2) Lochinvar stated that while the proposed change in the measurement of electrical consumption seems unnecessary, it does not object to the revision. After reviewing the comments on the March 2015 NOPR, DOE agrees with the alternative approach suggested by AHRI to make explicit that all of the electrical energy provided to the burner is captured in the E AE measurement. Rather than including the additional terms in the equation for E AE as proposed in the NOPR, DOE clarifies the definition of PE to include all of the electrical power that relates to burner operation, including energizing the ignition system, controls, gas valve or oil control valve, and draft inducer, if applicable. 7 In addition, DOE agrees with Burnham that the electrical power of the boiler pump, if present, should be accounted for in the electrical measurements for boilers. Therefore, DOE further amends the definition of PE for boilers to include the electrical power of the boiler pump. In cases where the boiler pump power might not be captured in the electrical power measurement because it is not operating at that time, DOE will require the nameplate power to be added to PE, and if nameplate power is not available, then manufacturers must include a default value of 0.13 kW. This is the same as the current default value for a circulating water pump, and DOE understands that the power of the boiler pump is similar to that of a typical circulating water pump. DOE revises sections 8.1, 8.2, and 10.4 of appendix N to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 to reflect the clarification of the definition of PE. 7 The existing DOE test procedure states in section 10.4.1 that PE is the “burner electrical power input at full load steady-state operation, including electrical ignition device if energized, as defined in 9.1.2.2 of ASHRAE 103-1993.” The revised section 2 of appendix N defines the individual components that are measured as part of PE: • Control means a device used to regulate the operation of a piece of equipment and the supply of fuel, electricity, air, or water. • Draft inducer means a fan incorporated in the furnace or boiler that either draws or forces air into the combustion chamber. • Gas valve means an automatic or semi-automatic device consisting essentially of a valve and operator that controls the gas supply to the burner(s) during normal operation of an appliance. The operator may be actuated by application of gas pressure on a flexible diaphragm, by electrical means, by mechanical means or by other means. • Oil control valve means an automatically or manually operated device consisting of an oil valve for controlling the fuel supply to a burner to regulate burner input. • Boiler pump means a pump installed on a boiler that maintains adequate water flow through the boiler heat exchanger and that is separate from the circulating water pump. Although these definitions were not explicitly proposed in the NOPR, they provide additional clarity about the definition of PE, consistent with the proposal in the NOPR to improve the regulatory text to reflect that PE includes the electrical power of all auxiliary components. Carrier noted that DOE in the past had held to the policy of not making changes that will negatively impact present ratings. The electrically-efficient furnaces ratio, known as “e”, will increase with the additional requirement, making some products lose their ENERGY STAR® qualification. Carrier stated that including additional electrical components along with the blower electrical consumption is equivalent to changing the ENERGY STAR qualifying standard without justifying the value. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 4) In response to Carrier's concerns, DOE notes that the definition of PE has always been the electrical energy input to the burner and that the amendments adopted in this rule merely make explicit additional components that are commonly incorporated into burners. Further, as noted in many other stakeholder comments, most manufacturers already measure the electrical power of all the auxiliary components that are listed in the revised definition of PE. Therefore, clarifying the additional components in the definition of PE will not affect ENERGY STAR ratings for most furnaces. Furthermore, the clarification of the definition of PE ensures more accurate and consistent reporting of energy consumption in the residential furnaces and boilers market. Weil-McLain stated that the new electrical testing requirements would not allow the manufacturer to interpolate results from tests because the electrical load will not scale in the same manner as other aspects of a boiler. This means hundreds of new tests will need to be run, imposing substantial cost and burden. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 6) In response to Weil-McLain's comment, DOE notes that only cast iron sectional boilers may be certified based on linear interpolation, as specified in 10 CFR 429.18(b)(3). As stated previously, the amendment of the definition of PE will not impose additional burden because it does not change the definition but merely clarifies the components included in measurement of PE. In addition, DOE's understanding is that cast iron sectional boilers are typically non-condensing models that do not have boiler pumps. Burnham recommended that DOE provide regulatory provisions to ensure that electrical consumption is measured with the controls normally shipped with the boiler. Such provisions are required because in many cases it is impossible to perform the AFUE test using controls having an automatic means of adjusting water temperature, making replacement of the standard controls during the AFUE test mandatory. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) DOE notes that the electrical power measurement during the steady-state test does not account for electrical power outside of normal steady-state operation. Therefore, any controls operation outside of the steady-state test, such as automatic means for adjusting water temperature, are not included in the electrical power measurement. 2. Smoke Stick Test for Determining Use of Minimum Default Off-Cycle and Power Burner Draft Factors In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to leave the default draft factor values for furnaces and boilers unchanged from the existing text procedure. 80 FR 12876, 12885. DOE did not receive any comments on this issue, and does not amend the default draft factor values for this final rule. In addition, to determine if a unit has no measureable airflow through the heat exchanger such that manufacturers may use the minimum default draft factors, DOE proposed in the March 2015 NOPR to incorporate a test based on the use of a smoke stick to establish the absence of flow through the heat exchanger. DOE requested input on whether, in addition to the proposed smoke stick test, other options exist for indicating the absence of flow through the heat exchanger. 80 FR 12876, 12902. Lochinvar stated that it appreciates and supports the DOE's affirmation of the use of smoke for visual determination of no-flow conditions in the vent. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 4) Similarly, Rheem stated that although the proposed procedure is not quantitative, it is more definitive than “absolutely no chance of airflow through the combustion chamber and heat exchanger when the burner is off.” (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 3) Ingersoll Rand and Carrier stated that the proposed procedure requires a detailed definition of the “smoke stick device” and test method to be created and made available. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 34 at p. 5) Ingersoll Rand stated that the test method and materials to be used need to be explicitly documented to ensure that all test labs generate repeatable and reproducible test results. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) Carrier also requested additional information as to where smoke sticks can be obtained commercially. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 5) DOE agrees with Rheem that the test procedure is not quantitative; however, the purpose of the test is to provide a visual assessment of no airflow, not a quantitative measure of airflow. Regarding the Ingersoll Rand and Carrier request to provide a detailed definition of the smoke stick device, DOE notes that smoke sticks are commercially available and routinely used for visualization purposes, and DOE does not endorse a specific type of smoke stick device. In addition, DOE believes that the exact amount of smoke produced by the smoke stick is not essential to the reproducibility of the results. Ingersoll Rand expressed concern about air flow in the lab and if manufacturers can fix their venting such that air does not flow through it. (Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 117) Similarly, Carrier requested DOE to add clarification to the procedure to ensure that the smoke stick is not affected by the ventilation system when used. Carrier also expressed concern about the use of a smoke-generating device in a lab area that is not appropriately ventilated. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 5) In response to Ingersoll Rand, DOE already specified that all air currents and drafts be minimized for the smoke stick test in the March 2015 NOPR. For this final rule, DOE explicitly states that ventilation should be turned off if the test area is mechanically ventilated, and to minimize air currents if there is no mechanical ventilation. To address Carrier's safety concerns, DOE clarifies that the smoke produced by the smoke stick must be non-toxic to the test personnel. DOE is confident that the smoke stick test as proposed in the NOPR and modified based on the clarifications recommended by stakeholders will ensure repeatable and reproducible test results. Therefore, DOE adopts the modified optional smoke stick test to determine the absence of flow through the heat exchanger. In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE also proposed to include revisions to the requirements of sections 8.8.3 and 9.10 of ASHRAE 103-2007 to accommodate the use of the smoke stick test, and, to reduce redundancy, to eliminate use of the term “absolutely” from “absolutely no chance of airflow” in sections 8.8.3 and 9.7.4 of ASHRAE 103-2007. 80 FR 12876, 12902. DOE received no comment on these proposals. Even though DOE has decided not to adopt ASHRAE 103-2007 and instead retain reference to ASHRAE 103-1993, the relevant sections do not differ between the two versions. Therefore, DOE is adding sections 7.10 and 8.10 to appendix N and revising sections 10.2 and 10.3 of appendix N to accommodate the use of the smoke stick test and is eliminating the use of the term “absolutely” from “absolutely no chance of airflow” in sections 8.8.3 and 9.7.4 of ASHRAE 103-1993 (included as sections 7.10 and 8.9 of appendix N) for determining the use of the minimum default draft factors. 3. Condensate Collection During the Establishment of Steady State Conditions In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to allow for the condensate mass to be measured during the establishment of steady-state conditions, rather than after steady-state has been achieved. 80 FR 12876, 12881. Section 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-1993 requires that the measurement of condensate shall be conducted during the 30-minute period after steady-state conditions have been established. For the March 2015 NOPR, DOE investigated the difference in condensate mass collected and the rate of condensate production during the two separate periods ( i.e., during the establishment of steady-state conditions and after steady-state conditions have been reached) and determined that there is no significant difference in the mass of condensate collected or the rate of condensate production during the two separate timeframes. In response to the March 2015 NOPR, Lennox, Lochinvar and AHRI stated their support for the allowance to measure condensate during the establishment of steady‐state conditions. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 36 at p.5; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) However, Lennox, AHRI and Ingersoll Rand each noted that to avoid an unintended consequence of causing manufacturers to retest existing models, this change should be clearly identified as an option to the current procedure. (Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3 Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 36 at p.5; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) Carrier also agreed that the condensate collection can be done during the steady state period, so long as clarification is added to prevent testing with dry heat exchangers. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 4) On the other hand, Rheem did not support allowing the measurement of condensate during the establishment of steady state conditions. (Rheem, No. 30 at p.1) Rheem argued that condensate measurements have a significant impact on the final calculated AFUE value and that additional variation in the condensate measurement procedure will add variation to the test procedure. Rheem believes that the time spent to establish steady-state conditions is worthwhile and should not be eliminated. (Rheem, No. 30 at p.1) DOE understands commenters' concerns regarding the test burden associated with the need to retest existing models to the new test procedure. Therefore, DOE has made the ability to measure condensate during the establishment of steady-state conditions an option, not a requirement. This change is incorporated in section 8.4 of appendix N. In response to Rheem, DOE notes that test data indicate a similar rate of condensate mass production in both the establishment of steady-state, and measurement of condensate test intervals. Therefore, DOE does not expect any impact on AFUE to result from the allowance of this optional procedure. 4. Installation and Operation Manual Reference The existing DOE test procedure language, which refers in some locations to “manufacturer recommendations” or “manufacturer instructions”, can lead to the use of ad hoc instructions derived solely for testing purposes. To clarify the test procedure language, DOE proposed in the March 2015 NOPR that testing recommendations should be drawn from each product's I&O manual. DOE also provided alternate instructions if the I&O manual did not contain the necessary testing recommendations. 80 FR 12876, 12883. Lastly, in the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to require manufacturers to request a test procedure waiver from DOE when the DOE test procedure provisions and I&O manuals are not sufficient for testing a furnace or boiler. Id. These proposals, comments received, and responses are discussed in the following sub-sections. a. Reference to I&O Manual DOE did not receive any comments objecting to reference the manufacturer's I&O manuals instead of “manufacturer's instructions” or “manufacturer's recommendations.” Therefore, DOE replaces all references to “manufacturer's instructions” or “manufacturer's recommendations” in ASHRAE 103-1993 with “I&O manual” in appendix N. 8 However, in response to the March 2015 NOPR, Burnham suggested revising the definition of I&O manual in section 2.7 because many oil boilers do not carry a safety listing as a packaged unit; rather, they are comprised of separately listed components. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 5) DOE agrees with Burnham that some boilers do not carry safety listings as packaged units and thus excludes the reference to the product's safety listing in the adopted definition of I&O manual in section 2 of appendix N. 8 DOE replaced references in sections 7.1, 7.2.2.2, 7.2.2.5, 7.2.3.1, 7.8, 8.2.1.3, 8.3.3.1, 8.4.1.1, 8.4.1.1.2, 8.4.1.2, 8.4.2.1.4, 8.4.2.1.6, 8.7.2, and 9.5.1.1 of ASHRAE 103-1993 with sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.9, and 8.5 of appendix N, respectively. b. Proposed Specific Instructions for Adjusting Combustion Airflow In the NOPR, DOE proposed specific instructions for adjusting combustion airflow to achieve an excess air ratio, flue O 2 percentage, or flue CO 2 percentage to within the middle 30th percentile of the acceptable range specified in the I&O manual. AHRI stated that the specification of “the 30th percentile of the acceptable range” is confusing. The 30th percentile is a single value so it is not clear what is meant by “the middle of the 30th percentile.” (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 3) Ingersoll Rand stated that the proposed burner adjustments are more restrictive than both the current test procedure and the specifications found in ASHRAE Standard 103-2007. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6) Burnham stated that while it supports DOE's effort to more closely tie air fuel ratio used during the test with what can be expected in the field, DOE needs to recognize that the industry practice has been to use the CO 2 at the top end of the range (or in some cases even higher) in the I&O manual. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) Lochinvar objected to the proposed changes, stating that forcing boiler manufacturers to test at the maximum input rate and the middle air-fuel ratio is not typical of field installations, is inconsistent with past rating methods, and will force manufacturers to rerate boilers based on this test procedure change. Lochinvar suggested adopting language from section 5.3 of AHRI Standard 1500, which uses the CO 2 at the top of the manufacturer's specified range, to provide improved clarity and specificity regarding the air-fuel adjustment and to be more consistent with current industry practice, with much less potential to force manufacturers to retest and rerate existing products. 9 (Lochinvar, No. 29 at pp. 2-3) 9 AHRI Standard 1500 is available at http://ahrinet.org/site/686/Standards/HVACR-Industry-Standards/Search-Standards. Lennox, AHRI, and Burnham noted that the proposed adjustment of the CO 2 percentage on gas- and oil-fired boilers would significantly affect AFUE. (Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-4; Burnham, No. 35 at pp. 2, 4) AHRI stated that the results of the testing of three residential boilers that it conducted at Intertek Testing Laboratories indicate that the proposed revised burner setup requirements change AFUE by 0.3 percent for each 1 percent difference in the CO 2 values. (AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) Burnham stated that based on test data that it provided, for an oil-fired hot water boiler with an 11.5 to 12.5 percent CO 2 adjustment range in the I&O manual, DOE's proposed adjustment would reduce AFUE by as much as 1.0 percent compared to the rating under the existing test procedure. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 2) Burnham stated that the proposed change to the requirements for adjusting CO 2 will have a significant impact on the existing ratings for many boilers, and that DOE needs to take this into account when evaluating the burden imposed by this rule, as well as promulgating the parallel residential boiler standards rulemaking currently underway. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) Carrier, Ingersoll Rand, and Rheem stated that most modern furnaces do not have the capability to make combustion air adjustments because the practice of including primary air shutters is no longer widely used on modern gas furnaces with fan-assisted or power burners. (Carrier, No. 34 at pp. 3-4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6; Rheem No. 30 at p. 3) AHRI and Burnham also stated that for many gas furnaces and boilers that use atmospheric burners or other equipment with no means of adjusting CO 2 in the field, these adjustments to the excess air ratio cannot be made. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 3, Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) Carrier, Ingersoll Rand, and Burnham stated that DOE needs to exclude from these requirements burners that have no capability to make combustion air adjustments. (Carrier, No. 34 at pp. 3-4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6; Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) Burnham stated that some type of tolerance is needed for adjusting CO 2 when the I&O manual provides only a single or maximum value, as opposed to a range. To address this issue, Burnham suggested adopting the language in section 5.3 of AHRI Standard 1500, which essentially sets a fixed tolerance of ±0.1 percent and uses the CO 2 at the top, as opposed to the middle, of the manufacturer's specified range. 10 (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 4) 10 AHRI Standard 1500 is available at http://ahrinet.org/site/686/Standards/HVACR-Industry-Standards/Search-Standards. After reviewing stakeholders' comments on the specific instructions for adjusting combustion airflow, DOE concurs that further study is needed to determine the impact on AFUE of the CO 2 percentage proposed in the March 2015 NOPR and the AHRI 1500 requirements suggested by certain stakeholders. As such, for this final rule, DOE does not adopt the specific instructions for adjusting combustion airflow to achieve an excess air ratio, flue O 2 percentage, or flue CO 2 percentage to within the middle 30th percentile of the acceptable range specified in the I&O manual. Instead, in sections 7.3 and 7.5 of appendix N, DOE retains the instructions in accordance with ASHRAE 103-1993 section 8.4.1.1 for gas burners to set the primary air shutters to give a good flame with no deposit of carbon during the test procedure, and section 8.4.1.2 for oil burners to give a CO 2 reading as specified in the I&O manual and an hourly Btu input within ±2% of the normal hourly Btu input rating as specified in the I&O manual. DOE understands from stakeholder comments that the instructions in the existing test procedure to adjust the primary air shutters for gas units are not applicable to many modern furnaces and boilers. However, DOE has determined that further investigation is required before amending these test procedure requirements. c. Waiver Process for Additional Test Instructions In response to DOE's proposal that manufacturers request a test procedure waiver from DOE when the DOE test procedure provisions and I&O manuals are not sufficient for testing a furnace or boiler, Burnham stated that the proposed waiver process is unduly burdensome, given the use of increasingly complex control and burner systems. To reduce the frequency with which waivers are required, Burnham suggested that DOE adopt a repository for “special test instructions” similar to that which DOE currently has in place for commercial boilers. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 5) Lennox and AHRI similarly stated that if DOE is concerned about the situation where the manufacturer does not provide any recommended settings in the I&O manual, DOE should allow manufacturer to provide information on unit setup for testing as part of the certification report as is done for commercial and industrial equipment. (Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3; AHRI, No. 36 at pp. 4, 6) In response to stakeholders' comments, DOE notes that manufacturers have control over what information is specified in the I&O manual. Furthermore, the test procedure provides defaults for most requirements that are based on the I&O manual. As such, DOE believes the instructions given in the test procedure and I&O manuals should be sufficient for testing in most cases. Therefore, DOE is not amending its certification provisions to permit manufacturers to report test-specific instructions as supplemental information in cases where the I&O manual does not provide instructions, and is implementing the requirement to request a waiver in section 6.1.a of appendix N. DOE also notes that the waiver procedure provides a feedback loop by which DOE learns of issues manufacturers are encountering with the test procedure and yields amendments to the test procedure through rulemaking to address those issues. 5. Duct Work for Units That Are Installed Without a Return Duct In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to add a provision in the test procedure clarifying that the return (inlet) duct is not required during testing for units that, according to the I&O manual, are intended to be installed without a return duct. 80 FR 12876, 12902-12903. In response, Rheem, Carrier, and Ingersoll Rand agreed that a unit that is intended to be installed without a return duct should be tested without a return duct. (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 34 at p. 6; Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 5) In addition, Carrier recommended that DOE adopt figure 2 in exhibit 1 of Carrier's comment, which clarifies the use of a return duct for gas furnaces. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 6) DOE agrees with stakeholders and adopts the amendment clarifying that units intended to be installed without a return duct are not required to use the return (inlet) duct during testing. After reviewing the figure provided by Carrier, DOE believes that the language is sufficient and an additional figure is unnecessary. 6. Testing Requirements for Multi-Position Configurations In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to require that multi-position furnaces be tested using the least-efficient position. 11 DOE also proposed to explicitly allow manufacturers to test multi-position furnaces in other configurations and report the AFUE ratings for each position. 80 FR 12876, 12886. 11 A multi-position furnace is a furnace that can be installed in more than one airflow configuration ( e.g., upflow or horizontal; downflow or horizontal; and upflow, downflow or horizontal). In response, AHRI stated that they believe that manufacturers already test in the least-efficient configuration. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 123) Carrier stated that in the past, it has tested and displayed the AFUE by orientation of installation; however, it no longer does so because the multiple ratings by position did not give customers any benefit. Because the setup requirements of the DOE test procedure already cause furnaces to operate at the lowest efficiency, thus making AFUE ratings conservative for the average installation, Carrier recommended that DOE drop the requirement to test in all positions and simplify the testing to be in the most commonly installed position of the furnace. If DOE were to require testing in all positions, Carrier proposed an alternative to allow single rating that is weighted based on percent of applications by configuration and installation location to reduce sample testing burden and not confuse consumers with excess information. (Carrier, No. 34 at pp. 6-8) Lennox disagreed with the testing requirements in multiple configurations because of the increased test burden and lack of improved test accuracy. (Lennox, No. 32 at pp. 3-4) In response to Carrier's and Lennox's concerns about increased test burden if required to test in all configurations, DOE clarifies that in the March 2015 NOPR, DOE did not propose to require manufacturers to test in all positions, but rather to require testing only in the least efficient configuration while explicitly allowing manufacturers to test in multiple configurations if they wish. DOE notes that, as stated by AHRI, it is already common industry practice to test in the least efficient configuration; accordingly, DOE anticipates that there will be no additional test burden from the clarification to require testing in the least efficient configuration. Regarding Carrier's suggestion to test in the dominant installed position, DOE believes that testing in the least efficient position will provide ratings that are more comparable between different models because the dominant position may not be the least efficient configuration and may vary among models and among manufacturers. DOE believes that Carrier's suggestion of a weighted rating is not practicable because DOE is not requiring manufacturers to test in all configurations, only the least efficient one. Therefore, in section 6.1.b of appendix N and in 10 CFR 429.18, DOE amends its regulations to require testing and rating only in the least efficient configuration, while still allowing manufacturers the ability to test and rate in multiple configurations. In addition, DOE includes a definition for multi-position furnace in section 2 of appendix N. In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE also proposed to allow testing of units configured for multiple position installations to use the blower access door as an option instead of one of the inlet openings. 80 FR 12876, 12886 (March 11, 2015). In response, Rheem stated that a furnace should not be tested in a configuration that is prohibited by the installation manual. For example, Rheem stated that its furnace installation manuals allow only bottom and side returns. A rear return and a return in place of the blower access door are not allowed. (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 4) Ingersoll Rand stated that testing of multi-position units using the blower access door may not be feasible option for some furnaces, and the manufacturer should state whether this is an acceptable test method for the furnace model. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6) DOE agrees with Rheem and Ingersoll Rand that units should not be required to be tested using the blower access door if not allowed in the I&O manual or if not feasible. In an effort to ensure consistent and appropriate testing, DOE withdraws its proposal that would have explicitly allowed the use of the blower access door for testing of multi-position furnaces and boilers that are not shipped with an open inlet. 7. AFUE Reporting Precision DOE's existing furnaces and boilers test procedure specifies that the AFUE rating be rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2). In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE sought comment on its proposal to report AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. 80 FR 12876, 12902. AHRI, Lochinvar, Lennox, and Burnham support reporting of AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point and noted that it reflects the current practice. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 6; Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 32 at p. 3; Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) However, Burnham does not agree with the proposal to round to the nearest 0.1 percent, stating that it would be a direct violation of 10 CFR 429.18(a)(2)(i)(B) requiring any representative value of AFUE for which consumers would favor higher values to be less than or equal to the lower of the mean of the sample or the lower 97.5 percent confidence limit (LCL) of the true mean divided by 0.95. Burnham stated that rounding up would allow the representative value to potentially be higher than allowed by calculation mentioned. Burnham urged DOE to prescribe the current industry practice of truncating to 0.1 percent. (Burnham, No. 35 at pp. 6-7) In contrast, Rheem stated that rating furnaces to the nearest tenth of a percentage point will give consumers the impression that one furnace is more efficient than another, while in actuality, the test procedure tolerances do not result in the proposed level of precision that should be required to support reporting AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 3) Ingersoll Rand stated that while DOE's CCMS can accommodate reporting AFUE to this level, any manufacturer that reports AFUE to the whole percentage point will have to submit new certification reports and relabel products. Ingersoll Rand stated that having to submit new certification reports and relabel products will cause an administrative burden and cost to manufacturers that was not addressed in the March 2015 NOPR. Ingersoll Rand requested that DOE consider setting the effective date of this requirement to coincide with the effective date of any amended energy conservation standard adopted under the March 12, 2015 energy conservation standards NOPR for residential furnaces. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6) AHRI stated that it reports to the nearest tenth to DOE for furnaces but not for boilers due to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ENERGY STAR requirements. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 19 at p. 89) Burnham urged DOE to work with the EPA to simultaneously update the ENERGY STAR requirement of rounding to the nearest whole percentage point to avoid conflicting values on the DOE and ENERGY STAR Web sites. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 7) DOE understands that reporting AFUE values to the nearest tenth of a percentage point is currently industry practice. Based on 10 CFR 429.18(a)(2)(i)(B), DOE agrees with Burnham that AFUE should be truncated to the tenth of a percentage point. In response to Rheem's comment about the test procedure tolerances, DOE notes that in response to the January 2013 RFI, Rheem stated that this level of precision has been demonstrated to be statistically possible. (Rheem, No. 12 at p. 9). DOE also observes that Rheem, as well as many other manufacturers, reports AFUE to the tenth of a percentage point in DOE's Compliance Certification Database and the AHRI directory for some models. In response to Ingersoll Rand's comments, DOE notes that AHRI's certification directories for both furnaces and boilers as well as DOE's Compliance Certification Database already allow manufacturers to report AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point. Therefore, DOE anticipates this clarification will not require changing the reported efficiency in manufacturer literature, nor will it cause significant manufacturer burden. Furthermore, in response to AHRI and Burnham, DOE notes that EPA must use the method of test, sampling plan, and representation requirements adopted by DOE. DOE will work with EPA to make sure the language in its specification is harmonized with federal regulations. Accordingly, DOE updates the existing requirement for residential furnaces and boilers in 10 CFR 430.23(n)(2) to truncate AFUE to the tenth of a percentage point. DOE also clarifies in 10 CFR 429.18 that the represented value of AFUE based on the tested sample must be truncated to the tenth of a percentage point. 8. Definitions and Other Changes In this final rule, DOE revises the term “seasonal off switch” to “off switch” and revises the definitions of “off mode” and “standby mode” in section 2 of appendix N to reflect the updated definitions found in the second edition of IEC 62301, which was incorporated by reference in the December 2012 final rule. DOE also revises sections 8.1, 8.2, and 8.4 of the existing appendix N (sections 8.3, 8.5, and 8.7 of the amended appendix N) to clarify and improve the test instructions. DOE also revises sections 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7.3, 10.9, 10.9.1, and 10.11 of appendix N to improve grammar and consistency in formatting throughout the test procedure, and to include missing variable definitions. In addition, DOE incorporates the previously excluded section 9.7.l of ASHRAE 103-1993 to include instructions on the setup of the tracer gas test. DOE updates the definition of “isolated combustion system” in section 2.5 of the existing appendix N (2.8 of the amended appendix N) to reflect the updated definition in ASHRAE 103-2007. Finally, DOE modifies section 8.3 of the existing appendix N (8.6 of the amended appendix N) to clarify that the referenced time delay is the blower delay t + . DOE did not receive comment on any of these revisions where proposed in the NOPR. E. Other Test Procedure Considerations 1. Room Ambient Air Temperature and Humidity Ranges In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed not to change the test procedure regarding room ambient temperature and humidity conditions, neither by mathematical correction nor by limiting the existing ambient condition range, and requested input on this approach. 80 FR 12876, 12889. Lochinvar and Lennox stated their support for DOE's proposal not to further restrict the ambient conditions due to the additional test burden it would cause. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 32 at p. 4) Rheem stated that they believe that the ambient conditions range requires further study. Rheem noted that the room ambient air temperature and humidity ranges were developed based on 30-year-old laboratory conditions and that laboratory conditions may be more carefully controlled today compared to the long past. (Rheem, No. 30 at p.1) AHRI noted that the new edition of ASHRAE-103-2016 will be issued for public review and one of the proposed amendments is to include changes to the definition of room ambient air operating conditions. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 5) Burnham stated that they disagree with DOE's assertion in the March 2015 NOPR that relative humidity (RH) has a minimal impact on the AFUE of condensing boilers and stated that the issue should be revisited. Burnham provided test data of a condensing boiler which shows a swing in AFUE of approximately 1.3 percent when the RH was changed from approximately 30 percent to 70 percent. Burnham stated that they expect the variation in AFUE as a function of RH to be at least as large for boilers as it is for furnaces. Burnham noted that the flue temperature of boilers is closely linked to the return water temperature during the test (120 °F), which is close to the typical dew point of natural gas flue products. Changes in RH may therefore have a large impact on where the temperature of the flue products falls below the dew point as they pass through the heat exchanger. Burnham stated that if ambient conditions have a significant impact on AFUE, DOE should tighten the tolerance for RH to conditions likely to be seen in the field, even if this results in an increased burden for manufacturers in the form of requiring conditioned lab facilities. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 7) DOE agrees with Rheem and Burnham that the impact of ambient conditions on AFUE warrants further study. However, at this time DOE does not have adequate data to justify the testing burden associated with the narrowing of ambient conditions. Therefore, DOE maintains the ambient conditions specified in the current test procedure. 2. Full-Fuel-Cycle Energy Metrics In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE stated that the test procedure rulemaking was not the appropriate vehicle for deriving an FFC energy descriptor for furnaces (and other products). Specifically, DOE noted that if a secondary FFC energy descriptor were included as part of the furnace and boiler test procedure, DOE would need to update the test procedure annually. DOE indicated its intent to estimate FFC energy savings in future energy conservation standards rulemakings for furnaces, and to take those savings into account in proposing and selecting amended standards. 80 FR 12876, 12896. In response to the NOPR, AGA expressed their disagreement with DOE's position, stating that the test procedure develops the energy efficiency rating for the product and is specifically the correct vehicle to be used for determining the FFC energy descriptor. AGA added that all that is needed is a mathematical adjustment to the site-based energy descriptor now determined by the test procedure. AGA requested that the Department reconsider its decision not to include provisions for an FFC energy descriptor and incorporate one in the test procedures for residential boilers and furnaces. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 3) DOE maintains its position outlined in the NOPR that it does not believe that a mathematical adjustment to the test procedure to account for FFC is appropriate. As noted in the March 2015 NOPR, the mathematical adjustment to the site-based energy descriptor relies on information that is updated annually. If DOE were to include such an adjustment to the test procedure, DOE would be required to update the test procedure annually. 3. Oversize Factor Value In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to maintain the existing oversize factor of 0.7 and sought comment on the appropriateness of this strategy. 12 80 FR 12876, 12891. 12 The “oversize factor” accounts for the national average oversizing of equipment that occurs when a heating product is sized to satisfy more than the heating load of the household. This is typically done to size the equipment so that it is able to satisfy the days in which the house heating requirements might be exceeded and/or to take into account uncertainties regarding house heating load. For example, a 0.7 oversize factor is equivalent to 170-percent oversizing of the heating equipment ( i.e., 70 percent greater input capacity than is required). Rheem stated that replacement furnaces are more likely to be oversized than a new construction furnace because the unit may not be resized when it is replaced with a more efficient unit. Rheem also noted that it is more likely for a furnace to be oversized in a climate with high variation in outdoor temperature, or if it is installed in an area with high airflow requirements for the cooling load. (Rheem, No. 30 at p. 4) DOE agrees with Rheem that a variety of factors, including construction type and climate, may influence the magnitude of oversizing that occurs in a given installation. DOE did not receive any data supporting a change to the existing oversize factor of 0.7. DOE has determined the existing value of 0.7 continues to be representative of the oversized factor applicable to the average U.S. household and therefore maintains that value. 4. Alternative Methods for Furnace/Boiler Efficiency Determination In response to the March 2015 NOPR, Carrier questioned the need for a test method as precise as ASHRAE 103 due to the advances that have been made in reducing cyclical losses. Carrier noted that the difference between steady state efficiency and cyclical AFUE is less than 1 percent across all model types. Carrier suggested that DOE change the AFUE metric for forced-air furnaces to be based on the steady-state operation. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 2) Carrier stated that this would simplify the test procedure and relieve significant burden from manufacturers. Carrier stated that the lab setup of gas furnaces during AFUE testing—including vent length, isolated combustion system (ICS) installation, off cycle times, and blower off delay time—rarely replicates the actual installation of condensing gas furnaces. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 2) DOE agrees that there have been significant advances in the minimization of cyclical losses since the inception of the AFUE metric. However, including cyclical losses, which are captured in the AFUE metric, still provides market differentiation for models that would yield the same steady-state values. Furthermore, DOE believes that the inclusion of cyclical losses in the AFUE metric has contributed to the increases in efficiency noted by Carrier. For these reasons, DOE declines to limit the calculation of AFUE to steady-state operation. DOE would be willing to work with industry to investigate this further to see if moving to a steady-state methodology has merit and meets the requirements of the statute. 5. Test Method for Combination Appliance In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE discussed the possibility of creating a test procedure for determining the efficiency of combination products. Ultimately DOE did not propose to amend the test procedure to include a method of test for combination appliances choosing not to complicate the test procedure rulemaking. 80 FR 12876, 12894. In response to the NOPR, Ingersoll Rand believes that EPCA anticipated products being capable of serving more than one function and expects DOE to set separate energy efficiency metrics for each major function. Ingersoll Rand noted that EPCA authorizes DOE to “set more than 1 energy conservation standard for each major function.” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5)) Ingersoll Rand suggested that establishing a combination metric and setting a standard for a combination unit is contrary to EPCA. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 6) DOE did not propose a combination metric in the NOPR, and does not amend the test procedure to include such a metric in this final rule. F. Test Burden EPCA requires that the test procedures DOE prescribes or amends be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals) or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use. These procedures must also not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In response to the March 2015 NOPR, Ingersoll Rand stated that the testing and reporting burden from the proposals would be far greater than the average 20 hours per response that DOE estimates. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 9) Weil-McLain expressed concerns that the cost of the proposed test is grossly underestimated and that cost analysis for all of the testing is fundamentally flawed and incomplete. Weil-McLain stated that a more appropriate estimate for the cost to re-test all models in DOE's example of average small boiler business with 70 basic models would be more than twenty times the estimate shown for various reasons, such as the cost of set up for each test, test re-runs if parameters are not met, test recording, and analysis time. In addition, Weil-McLain stated that: (1) Only the incremental cost related to the changes in procedure have been captured when in all likelihood all products will have to be retested through the entire test procedure; (2) at least two tests per model are required for data submittal; (3) initial certification and annual audits require an additional witness test by a third-party lab; (4) engineering, facility, or other charges were not captured; (5) third-party test agency fees were not considered; and (6) the time required to test the number of models for the manufacturer and third-party test agency capacity were not considered. Weil-McLain also stated that retesting and re-rating would take substantially longer than 180 days. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 at pp. 6-7) Ingersoll Rand stated that to retest all of its current models will require more than six months of lab time with a cost of over $400,000. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 9) Weil-McLain questioned why DOE would impose the burden of conducting all of the new tests on manufacturers when DOE stated that the results from using new test procedures will not change when compared to current procedure. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 2) Several stakeholders requested more time to conduct re-testing after the issuance of the final rule. Weil-McLain stated that the process of conducting all the tests, analyzing information, and conducting re-certification through the certified labs for hundreds of models cannot be completed within 180 days of when the final rule is issued. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 at p. 7) Similarly, Burnham expressed concern that it has found it impossible to thoroughly evaluate the impact of this NOPR, as it asserted that DOE provided only a short amount of time and inadequate information and resources during the rulemaking process. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 8) Goodman stated that the industry needs at least 6 months to assess the impact of the new test procedure on existing basic models. (Goodman, No. 33 at p. 2) Ingersoll Rand argued that the fact that many of the current models may be removed from the market as a result of the separate energy conservation standards rulemakings, Fan Energy Rating (FER) standard effective in 2019 and AFUE proposed standard effective in 2021, makes this retesting effort even more burdensome, unnecessary and wasteful. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 37 at p. 9) Carrier also stated that recent rulemakings, such as the standby power ruling and the recent legislation for furnace fans, have increased the test burden for gas furnace compliance compared to when the complicated AFUE procedure was formulated and first implemented. (Carrier, No. 34 at p. 3) The many comments from manufacturers regarding re-testing of all models currently in distribution were responding to DOE's proposals to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 103-2007 and adjust the CO 2 percentage. Under the amended test procedure, DOE is not incorporating by reference ASHRAE 103-2007 or adjusting of the CO 2 percentage, and so manufacturers will not need to re-test their entire model line-up, thereby alleviating the concerns expressed by manufacturers. DOE has assessed the test burden of the revisions to the test procedure it is adopting in this final rule, and has concluded that manufacturers will experience no additional burden when performing the AFUE test. DOE believes that the clarification of the electrical power term PE will not add any additional burden on manufacturers, since this is what has been required under the existing test procedure. In terms of the boiler pump, DOE included a default value in case manufacturers are not currently capturing this component, which will minimize test burden. Many manufacturers currently perform the tracer gas test to determine whether the minimum default draft factor of 0.05 may be used. DOE expects that, when establishing the absence of flow through the heat exchanger, the use of the smoke stick test will reduce the test burden to manufacturers by eliminating, in some cases, the need for the tracer gas test. The optional provision allowing for the measurement of condensate during the establishment of steady-state conditions will provide manufacturers of condensing furnaces and boilers time and labor savings. The inclusion of references to the I&O manual will provide additional guidance and clarity to the test procedure. It does not impose additional test burden since the information is already available in the manufacturers' literature. The amendment of the duct work setup for units that are installed without a return duct and the requirement to test multi-position units in the least efficient position only clarify the testing requirements. The duct work setup change reflect current industry practice and does not introduce new testing requirements. With respect to the multi-position unit testing, most manufacturers indicated that the change reflects their understanding and current practice. DOE notes that, although the test method did not describe the position for testing as the “least efficient position,” in practice, if following the existing method for setup, manufacturers should have tested the least efficient position or all testing configurations. DOE also notes that AHRI commented that this reflects the common practice of its members, which is to test in the least efficient position. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 123) Therefore, DOE expects that there would be no additional test burden associated with these revisions. The requirement to report AFUE to be truncated to the tenth of a percentage point and the requirement to report whether a boiler uses a burner delay automatic means control strategy will not introduce any additional test burden because they do not require retesting; however, they may impose a cost on either boiler manufacturers or manufacturers who do not currently report AFUE to a tenth of a percentage point, who must submit new certification reports and relabel their products. DOE discusses this burden in section IV.B. For these reasons, DOE concludes that the amended test procedure will not be unduly burdensome to conduct. G. Measured Energy Use When DOE modifies test procedures, it must determine to what extent, if any, the new test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or energy use of any covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) In the NOPR, DOE stated that the one amendment that might alter the AFUE of covered products is the incorporation by reference of ASHRAE 103-2007. 80 FR 12876, 12897. As discussed in section III.C, based on stakeholder comments, DOE has declined to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 103-2007 in this final rule. Therefore, the amended test procedure will not alter measured AFUE ratings. As discussed in section III.D.1, certain stakeholders commented that the proposed revision in the NOPR regarding the method for determining the electrical power consumption would change the power measurements. In response to comments, for the Final Rule, DOE decided not to change the method for calculating the electrical consumption and only clarified the definition of the PE term. This clarification will not alter measured AFUE ratings. As discussed in section III.D.3, certain stakeholders expressed concern that allowing the measurement of condensate during the establishment of steady state conditions would have an impact on the final calculated AFUE value. In response to comments, DOE clarified for the final rule that this is an option rather than a requirement. DOE has found through its testing as shown in the test data presented at the NOPR public meeting indicating both options produce a similar rate of condensate mass production and therefore would have a de minimis impact on measured AFUE ratings. As discussed in section III.D.4.b, certain stakeholders expressed concern that the proposed adjustment of the CO 2 percentage on gas- and oil-fired boilers would significantly affect AFUE. In response to comments, DOE has declined to adopt this proposal for the final rule. DOE received no comment regarding the impact of measured energy use on the remaining test procedure amendments, including the smoke stick test, duct work for units that are installed without a return duct, and testing requirements for multi-position configurations. The smoke stick test serves to verify a condition and does not impact ratings. The requirements for units installed without a return duct and for multi-position configurations only clarify the testing requirements, and therefore will not impact measured energy use or efficiency. For these reasons, DOE has determined that none of the adopted test procedure amendments would alter the projected measured energy efficiency or energy use of the covered products that are the subject of this rulemaking. H. Certification and Enforcement 1. Verification Test for Automatic Means for Adjusting the Water Temperature in Boilers In 2008, DOE published a technical amendment to the 2007 energy conservation standards final rule for residential furnaces and boilers that added design requirements for boilers consistent with the provisions of EISA 2007, including mandating, starting September 1, 2012, that all gas, oil, and electric hot water boilers (excluding those equipped with a tankless domestic water heating coil) be equipped with automatic means for adjusting the boiler water temperature (“automatic means”) to ensure that an incremental change in inferred heat load produces a corresponding incremental change in the temperature of water supplied (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(3)). 13 73 FR 43611 (July 28, 2008). EISA 2007 further specifies that for single-stage hot water boilers, the automatic means requirement may be satisfied by incorporating controls that allow the burner or heating element to fire only when the automatic means has determined that the inferred heat load cannot be met by the residual heat of the water in the system. When there is no inferred heat load, the automatic means limits the temperature of the water in the boiler to not more than 140 °F. 13 The automatic means requirement excludes boilers that are manufactured to operate without any need for electricity. EISA 2007 also prohibited constant-burning pilot lights for gas-fired hot water boilers and gas-fired steam boilers. 73 FR 43611, 43613 (July 28, 2008). The existing DOE residential furnace and boiler test procedure does not include any method of test for determining compliance with these design requirements. In the March 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed the introduction of a new test method for the verification of the automatic means for adjusting the water temperature in boilers. DOE proposed the use of two test methods—one for single-stage boilers and one for two-stage/modulating boilers—for verification of the functionality of the automatic means for adjusting the water temperature supplied by a boiler. The proposed test methods were based on draft testing methodologies provided by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), as well as the California mechanical codes section for non-residential boilers. 14 The two separate tests were developed to accommodate various boiler control strategies, including outdoor reset, inferred load, and thermal pre-purge ( i.e., burner delay). 15 The proposed test methods, as would be specified in 10 CFR 429.134, would be intended for use by DOE for assessment and enforcement testing to determine if a given basic model complies with the applicable design requirements. Therefore, boiler manufacturers would not be required to conduct this testing. 80 FR 12876, 12902. 14 California Energy Commission, “Reference Appendices for the 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-residential Buildings”, p. 332, (Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-004/CEC-400-2008-004-CMF.PDF ) (Last accessed January 16, 2015). 15 See the March 2015 NOPR for further description of the different control strategies. Several stakeholders commented on the lack of compliance criteria for the automatic means test. Burnham asserted that it is legally unacceptable for DOE to not specify any objective criteria for demonstrating compliance and that DOE does not have authority to unilaterally create criteria to determine compliance with the automatic means test without notice and comment. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) Weil-McLain stated that it is not clear what this required test criteria or procedure would be, but that, once defined, this test will require more time and resources to complete. Weil-McLain also asserted that the new requirement is arbitrary and capricious because it is so indefinite. (Weil-McLain, No. 31 p. 8) DOE's automatic means design requirement does not specify how a manufacturer must implement the automatic means and does not provide compliance criteria for the automatic means testing. DOE interprets the design requirement established by EISA 2007 as intending to allow manufacturers flexibility when designing control strategies to meet the design requirement. DOE believes that the requirement of an incremental change in inferred heat load that produces a corresponding incremental change in the temperature of water supplied is a sufficient metric for evaluation of the functionality of an automatic means for adjusting water temperature. DOE designed the tests, as noted in the March 2015 NOPR, to confirm whether the boiler supply water temperature responds to a change in inferred heat load without specifying to what degree the temperature must change or for how long that change is present because such detail is not required for meeting the design requirement. DOE also designed the test methods to accommodate technological advancements in controls and designs. For these reasons, DOE does not agree with Burnham and Weil-McLain that establishing further criteria or thresholds is required beyond the general requirements set forth in the 2008 technical amendment to the furnace and boiler final rule. Lochinvar stated that while it supports the use of automatic means as an effective method of energy conservation, it opposes testing controls for compliance for the following reasons: (1) The lack of compliance threshold; (2) no guarantee of repeatability or consistency in test method or results; (3) difficulty in reasonably measuring the effectiveness of different designs; (4) test method may be biased for or against certain control methods; and (5) a published simulation-type test will lead to manufacturers designing automatic means for the test compliance. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 3) AHRI stated that the criterion to confirm the functioning of the means is too vague to be meaningful, and that DOE should not finalize this proposed procedure and not pursue further the concept of adding a test to verify the functioning of the automatic means. (AHRI, No. 36 at p. 6) Several stakeholders commented on technical issues regarding the proposed test method. Lochinvar and Burnham stated that single-stage products may use options other than “thermal purge.” (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 3; Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) Lochinvar stated that if DOE chooses to require automatic means testing, single-stage boilers must be allowed to comply by meeting either the proposed test method in § 429.134(e)(1) or (e)(2). (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 3) Lochinvar also stated that DOE incorrectly states that the automatic means will change the heat output of a boiler in response to the inferred heat load. Responding to DOE's proposal in the March 31, 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation standards for boilers (“March 2015 ECS Boiler NOPR”), Lochinvar asserted that the automatic means would change the temperature of the water supplied, not necessarily the heat output. (Lochinvar, No. 29 at p. 4) Burnham argued that the water temperatures specified are too low to necessarily cause a burner delay. Also responding to the March 2015 ECS Boiler NOPR, Burnham suggested that the proposed 10 CFR 429.134(e)(1)(iii)(C) seems to imply that a delay will always be present. However, Burnham asserted that EISA only requires that the automatic means delay ignition above 140 °F until it has determined that the inferred heat load cannot be met by the residual heat in the boiler. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) Burnham stated that the proposed 10 CFR 429.134(e)(2)(ii)(B)( 1 ) specifies that the supply water temperature be maintained at “the lowest supply water temperature (±4 °F),” which may not be possible if the boiler's minimum input is greater than the corresponding load, resulting in burner cycling. Burnham stated that a similar problem is possible in the proposed 10 CFR 429.134(e)(2)(ii)(C)( 2 ), where a “boost function” (a control strategy commonly used that shifts the y-intercept of the reset curve upward during extended calls for heat) might make it impossible to hold the required ±3 °F tolerance for the boiler supply water temperature. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) Burnham stated that some of the control strategies currently in use require multiple burner cycles to determine the inferred heat load, which does not seem to be taken into account by DOE's proposed verification method. (Burnham, No. 35 at p. 6) DOE makes several changes to the proposed verification of automatic means tests to address the technical comments received from Lochinvar and Burnham. DOE revised the two tests for the verification of automatic means presented in the NOPR such that the test previously identified as the two-stage/modulating boilers test will apply to all boilers, with the exception of single-stage boilers that employ a burner delay control strategy. The test for all boiler products monitors water temperature settings from the inferential load controller and/or monitors supply water temperature to determine whether the supply water temperature changes in response to changes in the inferred load. This test method allows for establishing the necessary conditions that may lead to a change in inferred load, for example, a change in outdoor air temperature, a change in thermostat patterns, and/or a change in boiler cycling. DOE is adopting the test previously identified as the single-stage boilers test as the test method for single-stage boilers that employ a burner delay control strategy to fulfill the automatic means design requirement as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(3)(B)(ii). The test for single-stage boilers that employ a burner delay control strategy captures the delayed burner reaction following a call for heating when residual heat is present within the boiler. DOE agrees with Burnham and Lochinvar's comments that help to clarify the test method and allow for accommodating variations in the control strategies. Therefore, DOE adopts revisions that include removing the minimum supply water temperature tolerance requirement to allow variations in temperature when burner cycling occurs; increasing the inlet water temperature from 120 °F (±2 °F) to 140 °F (±2 °F) for the test method for single-stage boilers that employ a burner delay control strategy so that it is high enough to cause burner delay; and making terminology related to inlet water consistent throughout the test method. However, DOE disagrees with Burnham's comment that the tolerance range for determining a stabilized supply water temperature could not be met under a specific control strategy, such as the boost mode where an extended call for heating occurs until the heat demand is satisfied. In such a case, DOE's test method would be implemented when either the heat demand is satisfied or the high boiler water temperature limit is reached. As discussed in the March 2015 NOPR, DOE also adds a definition for “controlling parameter.” DOE has placed this definition in 10 CFR 430.2 rather than appendix N as it applies to DOE enforcement regulations rather than manufacturer testing. Controlling parameter is defined as a measurable quantity for a residential boiler (such as temperature or usage pattern) used for inferring heating load, which would then result in incremental changes in supply water temperature. 2. Compliance Dates for the Amended Test Procedure This document amends 10 CFR 429.18, 10 CFR 429.134, 10 CFR 430.2, 10 CFR 430.3, 10 CFR 430.23, and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N. When DOE modifies test procedures, it must determine to what extent, if any, the new test procedure would alter the measured energy efficiency or energy use of any covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) For the reasons described previously, DOE has determined that none of the test procedure amendments would alter the measured energy efficiency or energy use of the covered products that are the subject of this rulemaking. The changes made to appendix N through this final rule, as listed in section III.D, clarify the manner in which the test is conducted, or otherwise represent minor changes or additions to the test or reporting requirements that do not affect measured energy use. Therefore, these amendments become effective 30 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal Register. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2), 180 days after DOE prescribes or establishes a new or amended test procedure, manufacturers must make representations of energy efficiency, including certifications of compliance, using that new or amended test procedure. IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test procedure rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. This final rule amends DOE's test procedure by providing clarifications regarding relevant test procedure provisions and revising the definitions of some terms. DOE has concluded that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this certification is as follows: The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers a business entity to be a small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. These size standards and codes are established by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Residential boiler manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333414, “Heating Equipment (Except Warm Air Furnaces) Manufacturing,” for which the maximum size threshold is 500 employees or fewer. Residential furnace manufacturing is classified under NAICS 333415, “Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial refrigeration equipment manufacturing” for which the maximum size threshold is 750 employees or fewer. To estimate the number of companies that could be small business manufacturers of products covered by this rulemaking, DOE conducted a market survey using available public information to identify potential small manufacturers. DOE's research involved reviewing several industry trade association membership directories ( e.g., AHRI 16 ), SBA databases, 17 individual company Web sites, and marketing research tools ( e.g., Hoovers 18 reports) to create a list of all domestic small business manufacturers of residential furnaces and boilers covered by this rulemaking. 16 For more information on the boiler and furnace directories, see http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx. 17 For more information see: http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm. 18 For more information see: http://www.hoovers.com/. After DOE identified manufacturers of residential furnaces and consumer boilers, DOE then consulted publically-available data and contacted companies, as necessary, to determine if they both meet the SBA's definition of a “small business” manufacturer and have their manufacturing facilities located within the United States. DOE screened out companies that did not offer products covered by this rulemaking, did not meet the definition of a “small business,” or are foreign-owned and operated. Based on this analysis, DOE identified 9 small businesses that manufacture residential furnaces and 9 small businesses that manufacture residential boilers (two of which also manufacture residential furnaces), for a total of 16 small businesses potentially impacted by this rulemaking. This document amends DOE's test procedure by incorporating several changes that modify the existing test procedure or reporting requirements for furnaces and boilers. This includes the following changes that could potentially impact manufacturers: (1) Clarified definition of electrical power term PE; (2) a smoke stick method for determining whether the minimum default draft factor may be used; (3) a provision to allow for the measurement of condensate under steady-state conditions; (4) reference to manufacturers' I&O manuals; (5) specification of ductwork for units that are installed without a return duct; (6) specification of testing requirements for multi-position units; (7) revised reporting precision for AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point; and (8) requirement to report the use of a burner delay automatic means control strategy in certification reports. The estimated costs of testing/rating and potential impact to manufacturer burden resulting from use of the amended test procedure are discussed subsequently. The estimated costs and potential impacts apply to all manufacturers, including the manufacturers identified as small businesses. DOE believes that explicitly listing the components encompassed in the definition of PE does not change the definition of the electrical power term PE but rather only clarifies it, and will not impose any additional test burden. The adoption of the smoke stick method for determining whether the minimum default draft factor may be used is intended to reduce the test burden to manufacturers. DOE estimated that the smoke stick method for determining the minimum default draft factor would reduce the overall duration of the test by about 15 minutes for units designed to have no flow through the heat exchanger. However, DOE does not have sufficient information to support estimating the fraction of units that have been designed such that there is no flow through the heat exchanger. Therefore, DOE has not included the cost savings associated with the smoke stick. The addition of the optional provision to allow for the measurement of condensate prior to the establishment of steady state conditions will result in a lowering of test burden for manufacturers of condensing furnaces and boilers. Manufacturers of condensing furnaces and boilers will benefit from the time and labor savings attributed to the measurement of condensate during the establishment of steady-state conditions. However, DOE does not have sufficient information to support estimating the fraction of units that would be tested under the optional provision. Therefore, DOE has not included the cost savings associated with the optional provision to allow for the measurement of condensate prior to the establishment of steady state conditions. The clarification of duct work requirements for units that are installed without a return duct and clarification of the test requirements for multi-position units do not present any additional test burden to manufacturers, as the two amendments do not change the existing testing requirements or conflict with current industry practice. Revision of AFUE reporting precision and the requirement to report the use of a burner delay automatic means control strategy in the certification report do not present any additional test burden to manufacturers, as the two amendments do not change testing requirements. However, both amendments may require some manufacturers to submit new certification reports and relabel their products. DOE estimates that for affected parties, submitting new certification reports and relabeling products will take 30 minutes per unit. At an assumed cost of $40 per hour, the cost to recertify and relabel is $20 per unit. To determine the potential cost of the test procedure amendments on small furnace and boiler manufacturers, DOE estimated the cost of recertifying and relabeling per basic model and the savings from the optional provision to measure condensate during the establishment of steady state conditions, as described above. DOE estimated that on average, each furnace small business would have 51 basic models, and each boiler small business would have 70 basic models. Based on residential furnace and boiler model data, DOE assumed that approximately 70 percent of all furnace and 60 percent of all boiler manufacturers will need to recertify and relabel due to the revision of the AFUE reporting precision. Based on residential boiler model data, DOE assumed that about 75 percent of boilers are single-stage boilers; furthermore, DOE assumed that about two-thirds of single-stage boilers employ a burner delay automatic means control strategy. Thus, DOE assumed that half of all boiler models will employ a burner delay automatic means control strategy. The additional recertification and relabeling cost associated with the test procedure amendments was multiplied by the estimated fraction of affected basic models produced by a small manufacturer. DOE has estimated a total added cost from the test procedure amendments of $714 per furnace manufacturer and a total added cost of about $1,120 per boiler manufacturer for manufacturers that currently do not report AFUE to the nearest tenth of a percentage point or for manufacturers of single-stage boilers that employ a burner delay automatic means control strategy. For the reasons stated previously, DOE certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers of residential furnaces and boilers must certify to DOE that their products comply with all applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance with applicable performance standards, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for residential furnaces and boilers, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. Manufacturers must also ensure their products comply with applicable design standards. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including residential furnaces and boilers. See generally 10 CFR part 429. The collection-of-information requirement for certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 30 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collec [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2016-00040. Public record. Not legal advice.