Rule2026-20517
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 7, 2026
Effective
December 7, 2026
Issuing agencies
Energy Department
Abstract
The Department of Energy ("DOE" or "the Department") is withdrawing the test procedure for commercial warm air furnaces adopted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifically appendix B, "Uniform Test Method for Measurement of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal Efficiency Two)." Upon reconsideration, DOE has determined that appendix B would have an uncertain increase in representativeness that does not outweigh the likely increase in burden. DOE has also determined that withdrawing the appendix B test procedure would be consistent with the proposed Process Rule, which states that for certain categories of equipment, including CWAFs, DOE will adopt the industry test procedure, as contemplated by EPCA, except in very limited circumstances. Commercial warm air furnaces will continue to be subject to the testing requirements of appendix A, "Uniform Test Method for Measurement of the Energy Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal Efficiency)."
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64105-64114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20517]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 64105]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2025-BT-TP-0035]
RIN 1904-AG06
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Commercial Warm
Air Furnaces
AGENCY: Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (``DOE'' or ``the Department'') is
withdrawing the test procedure for commercial warm air furnaces adopted
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifically appendix B,
``Uniform Test Method for Measurement of the Energy Efficiency of
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal Efficiency Two).'' Upon
reconsideration, DOE has determined that appendix B would have an
uncertain increase in representativeness that does not outweigh the
likely increase in burden. DOE has also determined that withdrawing the
appendix B test procedure would be consistent with the proposed Process
Rule, which states that for certain categories of equipment, including
CWAFs, DOE will adopt the industry test procedure, as contemplated by
EPCA, except in very limited circumstances. Commercial warm air
furnaces will continue to be subject to the testing requirements of
appendix A, ``Uniform Test Method for Measurement of the Energy
Efficiency of Commercial Warm Air Furnaces (Thermal Efficiency).''
DATES: The effective date of this rule is December 7, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents and materials, is available for review at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> index. However, not all documents listed in the
index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt
from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2025-BT-TP-0035">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2025-BT-TP-0035</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket, as
well as a summary of the rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Appliance Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, Building Technologies Office,
CM-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d091a0a0bcb9b1beb3b583a4b1beb4b1a2b4a381a5b5a3a4b9bfbea390b5b5feb4bfb5feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85c4f5f5e9ece4ebe6e0d6f1e4ebe1e4f7e1f6d4f0e0f6f1eceaebf6c5e0e0abe1eae0abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aaefd8c3c984f9decbd9eac2db84cec5cf84cdc5dc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fbbe899298d5a88f9a88bb938ad59f949ed59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>.
For further information on how to review other public comments and
the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a4e5d4d4c8cdc5cac7c1f7d0c5cac0c5d6c0d7f5d1c1d7d0cdcbcad7e4c1c18ac0cbc18ac3cbd2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81c0f1f1ede8e0efe2e4d2f5e0efe5e0f3e5f2d0f4e4f2f5e8eeeff2c1e4e4afe5eee4afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>.
A plain language summary of the rule is also available on the Federal
eRulemaking portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Discussion
A. Legal Issues
1. Consideration of EPCA Requirements
2. Other Legal Comments
B. Industry Participation
C. Representativeness of Appendix B
D. Test Burden for Conducting Appendix B
E. Other Considerations
1. Regulatory Certainty
2. Competitiveness
3. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts
III. Conclusions
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 the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential
Memoranda
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final rule, as well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment of test procedures for
commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs'').
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291- 6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV,
section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed
to improve energy efficiency. This covered equipment includes CWAFs,
the subject of this final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing; (2) labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and
[[Page 64106]]
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making other representations about
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products/
equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and
regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and
standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws
or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions
set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the criteria and
procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures
prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment
during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the
Secretary) and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedure for CWAFs be those generally
accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or
recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (``AHRI'') or by the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1''). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such industry test procedure is
amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the
amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule
published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet the
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative
use and test burden, in which case DOE may establish an amended test
procedure that does satisfy those statutory provisions. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B) and (C))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including
CWAFs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(3))
In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, the Department must publish proposed test procedures in the
Federal Register and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not
less than 45 days duration) to present oral and written data, views,
and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If
DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE
must publish in the Federal Register its determination not to amend the
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
B. Background
In January 2023, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022''), which updated the referenced
industry standards for testing CWAFs to reflect the most recent
versions of those standards that are currently available, thereby
triggering DOE's rulemaking obligations under EPCA.\3\ Consequently,
DOE conducted a rulemaking to consider amending the test procedure for
CWAFs in satisfaction of both the ``ASHRAE trigger'' requirement under
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and the 7-year-lookback review requirement
specified in EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1). DOE completed this
rulemaking by publication of a final rule in the Federal Register on
June 2, 2023 (``June 2023 Final Rule''), through which the Department
prescribed the currently applicable test procedure (i.e., 10 CFR part
431, subpart D, appendix A (``appendix A'')) for CWAFs manufactured on
and after May 28, 2024. 88 FR 36217. The June 2023 Final Rule also
established a new metric Thermal Efficiency Two (``TE2'') and
corresponding test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B
(``appendix B''), the use of which is not required until the compliance
date of any energy conservation standards for CWAFs denominated in
terms of TE2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ More recently, ASHRAE released the latest version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2025''). However, that
document contained no updates pertaining to CWAFs, so DOE's
rulemaking obligations under EPCA were not triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The June 2023 Final Rule was challenged by AHRI, which filed a
petition for review on August 1, 2023 in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a February 6, 2024 order, the Fourth
Circuit granted a voluntary remand of the June 2023 Final Rule to DOE
to determine whether establishment of the test procedure for the TE2
metric is supported by the specific provisions applicable to CWAFs
under EPCA. More specifically, DOE agreed in this voluntary remand to
not enforce the TE2 test procedure unless and until the Department
determines that the TE2 test procedure is consistent with the amended
industry test procedure, or determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that the amended industry test procedure fails to
satisfy the statutory requirements.
On January 17, 2025, DOE published a final determination in the
Federal Register (``January 2025 Final Determination''), which provided
DOE's conclusion that the amended industry test procedure fails to
satisfy EPCA's statutory requirements, thereby supporting DOE's finding
that the test procedure incorporating the TE2 metric is justified under
the applicable statutory criteria. 90 FR 5560. In the January 2025
Final Determination, DOE highlighted the industry standard's failure to
account for CWAF jacket losses or part-load operation, which the
Department considered significant factors with regard to CWAF energy
use. Thus, DOE reasoned that the industry standard does not account for
significant variations in energy use across different CWAF models.
Consequently, DOE determined that the industry test procedure was not
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency during a representative average use cycle that, as
determined by DOE, includes jacket losses and part-load operation for
the TE2 metric. 90 FR 5560, 5565-5566 (Jan. 17, 2025).
On May 16, 2025, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking in
the Federal Register (``May 2025 NOPR''), stating that it was
revisiting the test procedure for CWAFs codified at 10 CFR part 431,
subpart D, appendices A and B. 90 FR 20909, 20911. DOE noted that the
Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') is pursuing a policy to reduce
regulatory burden wherever possible. Under that policy, DOE
[[Page 64107]]
proposed to reevaluate existing test procedures to determine whether
they are unduly burdensome to conduct. After a reevaluation of the
CWAFs test procedure pursuant to the authority in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-
(4), the Secretary tentatively determined, after reviewing the
reasoning of the June 2023 Final Rule and the January 2025 Final
Determination, that DOE had insufficient evidence to support adoption
of the TE2 metric and that DOE had overestimated the impacts of jacket
losses and part-load operation on CWAF energy use. Furthermore, the
Secretary tentatively concluded that DOE had underestimated the burdens
of the TE2 test procedure in appendix B. Accordingly, DOE proposed to
remove the definition of ``Thermal efficiency two'' and appendix B from
its regulations for commercial warm air furnaces. Id.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2025 NOPR from the
interested parties listed in Table III.1.
Table III.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2025 NOPR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment No.
Commenter(s) Reference in this Final Rule in the Commenter type
docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAON................................... AAON............................. 9 Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI............................. 16 Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP and ACEEE................... 13 Energy-Efficiency and
and American Council for an Energy- Environmental Advocacy
Efficient Economy. Organizations.
Center for Biological Diversity........ CBD.............................. 11 Energy-Efficiency and
Environmental Advocacy
Organization.
District of Columbia Department of DOEE et al....................... 10 State Agencies.
Energy and Environment, Maine
Governor's Energy Office, the Maryland
Energy Administration, the
Massachusetts Department of Energy
Resources, the Minnesota Department of
Commerce, the New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority,
and the Washington State Department of
Commerce.
Johnson Controls....................... JCI.............................. 12 Manufacturer.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance... NEEA............................. 15 Energy-Efficiency and
Environmental Advocacy
Organization.
Michael Ravnitzky...................... Ravnitzky........................ 7 Individual.
Rheem Manufacturing Company............ Rheem............................ 14 Manufacturer.
Daniel Simpson......................... Simpson.......................... 6 Individual.
Trane Technologies..................... Trane............................ 8 Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\4\
To the extent that interested parties have provided written comments
that are substantively consistent with any oral comments provided
during the May 29, 2025 public meeting, DOE cites the written comments
throughout this final rule. DOE did not identify any oral comments
provided during the May 29, 2025 public meeting that are not also
substantively addressed by written comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to amend test
procedures for CWAFs. (Docket No. EERE-2025-BT-TP-0035, which is
maintained at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references are arranged as
follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number at page of that
document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, ASAP and ACEEE, CBD, DOEE et al.,
and NEEA generally opposed the proposal to rescind the test procedures
for CWAFs; while AAON, AHRI, JCI, Rheem, and Trane generally supported
the proposal. (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 13 at p. 2; CBD, No. 11 at p. 1;
DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2; AAON, No. 9 at p. 1;
AHRI, No. 16 at p. 1; JCI, No. 12 at p. 1; Rheem, No. 14 at p. 1;
Trane, No. 8 at p. 1)
Specific comments are discussed in detail in the following
sections.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Issues
In response to the May 2025 NOPR, DOE received several comments on
various legal issues regarding the proposed changes to the CWAFs test
procedure. These comments are discussed and addressed in the
subsections that follow.
1. Consideration of EPCA Requirements
AHRI commented that DOE is required to amend the test procedure
consistent with the industry test procedure referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 unless DOE makes a determination that there is clear and
convincing evidence to support a finding that the ASHRAE test procedure
does not meet the EPCA requirements. AHRI stated that it had previously
filed a legal challenge to the adoption of the appendix B test
procedure due to failure to follow the ASHRAE process as outlined in
EPCA. (AHRI, No. 16 at pp. 1-2)
Rheem, AHRI, and JCI commented that DOE did not provide clear and
convincing evidence that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 did not meet EPCA
requirements. (Rheem, No. 14 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2; JCI, No. 12
at p. 2) AAON commented that the TE2 metric was not developed through
the ASHRAE 90.1 consensus process. (AAON, No. 9 at p. 1) Rheem and AHRI
commented in support of using the TE metric over the TE2 metric due to
the lack of justification for the TE2 metric. (Rheem, No. 14 at p. 1;
AHRI No. 16 at pp. 2-3)
An individual commented that the proposal in the May 2025 NOPR
would reverse the result of DOE's seven-year lookback review and the
ASHRAE-triggered rulemaking, in which DOE adopted the TE2 metric with
clear findings that jacket-losses and part-load efficiency materially
affect real-world energy use. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at p. 1)
As discussed in sections II.B through II.E of this final rule, DOE
has reevaluated the test procedure in appendix B consistent with EPCA's
requirements. As noted by AAON, the TE2 test metric was not developed
through the ASHRAE consensus process and has not been referenced in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as the appropriate industry test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of CWAFs. Particularly given the
ongoing manufacturer critiques of the TE2 test procedure, DOE has come
to see that its adoption of that test method may have been premature
and based upon speculative improvements in representativeness as
compared to
[[Page 64108]]
increases in test burden, as discussed in section II.C and II.D,
respectively. Accordingly, upon reconsidering the uncertainty of both
the increased representativeness and test burden of the test procedure,
DOE has determined that withdrawing appendix B is appropriate,
consistent with the May 2025 NOPR.
Furthermore, this modified approach is consistent with relevant
provisions of the notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') published in
the Federal Register on July 7, 2026, which would revise DOE's Process
Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A (``Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test
Procedures for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial/Industrial
Equipment''). 91 FR 42034. More specifically, section 8(c) of the
proposed DOE Process Rule states that the Department will adopt
industry test standards as DOE test procedures for covered products and
equipment, unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to
conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy
efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA), or estimated
operating cost of that equipment during a representative average use
cycle. Id. at 91 FR 42079. Section 9(b) of the proposed Process Rule
states that for ASHRAE equipment (which includes the subject CWAFs),
DOE will adopt the revised industry test procedure, as contemplated by
EPCA, except in very limited circumstances. Id. at 91 FR 42080.
2. Other Legal Comments
CBD commented that while DOE provided justification for the amended
CWAF test procedures in two separate rulemakings (88 FR 36217 and 90 FR
5560), it has not provided justification for the proposed change to
rescind them. Further, CBD stated that DOE's proposal is in violation
of the Administrative Procedures Act's (``APA's'') requirement that
agencies implement statutory objectives in line with the language and
purpose of the statute (citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,
603 U.S. 369 (2024)). (CBD, No. 11 at p. 2) Additionally, CBD commented
that DOE's proposed rule violates the APA's requirements that an agency
action must not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law (citing 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A)). (CBD,
No. 11 at p. 3) CBD stated that the APA requires agencies to examine
relevant data and articulate a rational connection between facts and
the policy choice made, asserting that DOE did not provide any reasoned
explanation or evidence for rescinding the CWAF test procedures. (Id.)
CBD also asserted that DOE has not followed the APA's requirement that
a policy reversal must be based on factual findings, and account for
reliance interests. (Id.) CBD commented that, at a minimum, DOE should
issue a new proposed rulemaking and allow public comments before moving
forward. (Id.)
An individual also commented that the May 2025 NOPR violates the
APA because it does not provide clear and convincing evidence to
support its claims and is, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
(Ravnitzky, No. 7 at p. 1)
As discussed in the May 2025 NOPR, the Secretary is pursuing a
policy to reduce regulatory burden wherever possible. 90 FR 20909,
20911 (May 16, 2025). Under that policy, DOE proposed to reevaluate
existing test procedures to determine whether they are unduly
burdensome to conduct. After a reevaluation of the CWAFs test procedure
pursuant to the authority in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(4), the Secretary
tentatively determined, after reviewing the reasoning of the June 2023
Final Rule and the January 2025 Final Determination, that DOE had
insufficient evidence (i.e., that it lacked the required clear and
convincing evidence) to support adoption of the TE2 metric and that DOE
had overestimated the impacts of jacket losses and part-load operation
on CWAF energy use. Furthermore, the Secretary tentatively concluded
that DOE had underestimated the burdens of the TE2 test procedure in
appendix B. Accordingly, DOE proposed to remove the definition of
``Thermal efficiency two'' and appendix B from its regulations for
commercial warm air furnaces. Id. In response to CBD's assertions, DOE
has presented the arguments relevant to the benefits and burdens of the
TE2 test procedure (discussed in more detail in sections II.B through
II.E of this document) and DOE has determined that appendix B would
have an uncertain increase in representativeness that does not outweigh
the likely increase in burden, and determined that rescinding the TE2
test procedure is appropriate.
After reviewing information received in response to the May 2025
NOPR (including a number of supportive public comments), DOE has
determined that withdrawing appendix B is appropriate under EPCA's
requirements for establishing test procedures and the procedural
requirements of the APA, as well as being consistent with the
Department's and Administration's goals of reducing regulatory burden
specified in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation.'' 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025).
CBD also commented that DOE must comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') when carrying out the proposed
deregulatory action, and argued, contrary to DOE's claims, that none of
the NEPA's categorical exclusions are applicable in this case. (CBD,
No. 11 at p. 3) Similarly, an individual commented that DOE's reliance
on a NEPA categorical exclusion overlooks environmental consequences
such as increased fuel consumption and emissions. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at
p. 2) Both of these commenters stated that DOE must address
environmental impacts and reasonable alternatives. (CBD, No. 11 at p.
3; Ravnitzky, No. 7 at p. 2)
As discussed in section IV.D of this final rule, DOE analyzed the
determination that the appendix B test procedure should be withdrawn in
accordance with NEPA and determined that this action is administrative
and routine. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, paragraph A4. Per Section 2.1
(5) of DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures, published on June 30, 2025
and July 13, 2026, DOE has determined that as an administrative and
routine action, this rulemaking is not a major Federal action subject
to review under NEPA. This determination is consistent with DOE's NEPA
determination in the June 2, 2023 final rule establishing the TE2 test
procedure, where DOE determined that the rule fell into a class of
actions that are categorically excluded from review under NEPA and
DOE's implementing regulations, because it is a rulemaking that
interprets or amends an existing rule or regulation that does not
change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being
amended. See 88 FR 36217, 36231. Consequently, DOE has determined that
NEPA review is not required.
An individual commented that rescinding appendix B conflicts with
Executive Order (``E.O.'') 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), which mandates evaluation of any rule likely to affect
energy infrastructure. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at p. 2)
As discussed in section IV.K of this final rule, this regulatory
action is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. However, it
would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Accordingly, since the relevant
criteria
[[Page 64109]]
under E.O. 13211 have not been triggered, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects as required in E.O. 13211 for significant
energy actions.
B. Industry Participation
DOE received the following comments regarding industry
participation in the development of the appendix B test procedure.
JCI reiterated the benefits of using the ASHRAE process to develop
a test method, commenting that ASHRAE members would suggest proposals
that would be less burdensome and costly than appendix B. (JCI, No. 12
at p. 2)
AAON commented that DOE did not allow stakeholders to provide
meaningful input on the appendix B test procedure and TE2 metric. AAON
encouraged DOE to use the ASHRAE process to ensure stakeholder
engagement in the development of new metrics. (AAON, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
JCI suggested that technical experts were unable to contribute
significantly to the development of the TE2 metric because it was
proposed and finalized outside of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 process.
(JCI, No. 12 at p. 2) Trane commented that DOE should start with a
request for information (``RFI'') before developing an alternative test
procedure and energy efficiency metric calculation. (Trane, No. 8 at p.
3)
In response, DOE takes issue with these comments suggesting that
DOE did not provide an adequate opportunity for public comment on the
CWAFs test procedure generally and the TE2 metric specifically. To this
point, DOE notes that the Department initiated the CWAFs test procedure
rulemaking through an RFI published in the Federal Register on May 5,
2020 (``May 2020 RFI''), which included the topics of jacket losses and
part-load performance for public input. 87 FR 10726, 10735-10740. After
having considered feedback from stakeholders received in response to
the RFI, DOE solicited and received further input from stakeholders
through a NOPR published in the Federal Register on February 25, 2022
(``February 2022 NOPR''), which proposed the appendix B test procedure
and the TE2 metric.\5\ 87 FR 10726. For the CWAFs test procedure final
rule, which was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2023, DOE
considered all comments received in response to the February 2022 NOPR,
including comments specifically regarding the TE2 metric. 88 FR 36217.
With that said, while DOE did solicit, receive, and review extensive
public input during the process of establishing appendix B, DOE is
withdrawing the appendix B test procedure for other reasons, as
described elsewhere in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ DOE also held a webinar public meeting for the February 2022
NOPR on March 29, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Representativeness of Appendix B
DOE received the following comments regarding the
representativeness of the appendix B test procedure.
ASAP and ACEEE commented that in the June 2023 Final Rule, DOE
determined that the CWAF test procedure specified in ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2022 is not representative of an average use cycle, specifically
mentioning that it does not include jacket losses and part-load
operation. (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 13 at p. 1) ASAP and ACEEE and NEEA
asserted that DOE had not presented new information in the May 2025
NOPR to support the claims that DOE previously overestimated the
impacts of jacket losses and part-load operation. (ASAP and ACEEE, No.
13 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 15 at p. 1) Further, NEEA commented in opposition
to removing appendix B and stated that appendix B is representative of
CWAF energy use. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2) NEEA expressed agreement with
DOE's previous assertions that part-load testing and furnace jacket-
loss testing can impact CWAF energy use and that including these
factors would increase the representativeness of CWAF ratings. (Id.)
Finally, NEEA commented that representative test procedures are
important for utilities and efficiency organizations to quantify energy
savings for market-based programs supporting energy-efficient products.
(NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
In contrast, Trane commented that the TE2 metric is not
representative of the average use cycle of CWAFs. (Trane, No. 8 at p.
1) Trane additionally commented that DOE should rescind appendix B and
utilize only appendix A, asserting that appendix B is unduly burdensome
and unrepresentative and is not supported by clear and convincing
evidence that it provides a representative energy efficiency
measurement of the average use cycle of CWAF equipment. (Id. at p. 3)
Trane also commented that while the TE2 calculation incorporates both
jacket losses and part-load performance, averaging the full and part-
load efficiencies to calculate TE2 is not representative of the average
use cycle of CWAFs. Trane commented that CWAFs operate more hours in
part-load than full-load, with hours varying depending on sizing and
building load. (Id. at pp. 1-2) In addition, Trane stated that a bin
analysis, where heating performance is assessed for different ``bins''
of heating hours across a heating season, would be required, along with
industry engagement, to develop a more representative load performance
weighting. (Id at p. 2) Trane argued that use of the TE2 metric could
stifle future energy saving technology development if an arbitrary
weighting is used in the regulatory test procedure. (Id.)
Further, AAON commented that the part-load degradation factors and
extrapolated jacket-loss coefficients lack empirical validation and
fail to represent actual equipment operation or customer applications.
(AAON, No. 9 at p. 1) Rheem commented that appendix B is inconsistent
with industry standards. (Rheem, No. 14 at p. 1) Trane also commented
that neither appendix A nor appendix B accurately represent winter
season performance because the combustion air temperature in real
applications would be lower than in testing. (Trane, No. 8 at p. 3)
In response, DOE notes that the disparity among comments with
regard to jacket losses and part-load performance demonstrates that
there remains a lack of consensus among interested parties about the
extent to which appendix B would produce test results that are more
representative of an average use cycle as compared to appendix A.
Specifically with regard to the weighting of full-load and part-load
performance, DOE requested comment on alternate weighting values in the
February 2022 NOPR but none of the commenters provided data with which
to determine an alternative weighting that would be more
representative, and DOE remains unaware of any data that would be
useful to better characterize the appropriate weighting factors.
However, in light of these continued uncertainties regarding the
potential increase in representativeness of appendix B, in this final
rule, DOE has reconsidered the balance between representativeness and
test burden as required by EPCA's dual mandate that DOE's test
procedures be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect
energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a
representative average use cycle while also not being unduly burdensome
to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) As a result, for the reasons
discussed in more detail in section III of this document, DOE is
rescinding the appendix B test procedure.
[[Page 64110]]
D. Test Burden for Conducting Appendix B
DOE received the following comments regarding the burdens
associated with performing the appendix B test.
NEEA commented that U.S. companies have begun preparing for testing
and rating CWAFs using the appendix B test procedure since DOE
established the test procedure two years ago and that rescinding it
could result in losses associated with testing and rating equipment, as
well as loss in investments to adjust product designs and manufacturing
lines. (NEEA, No. 15 at p. 2)
DOEE et al. opposed the proposal to rescind the CWAF test
procedures, asserting that it would negatively impact businesses in
their States. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 1) DOEE et al. also commented
that manufacturers have already invested time and money into complying
with the appendix B test procedure. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at p. 2)
Two individuals commented that rescinding appendix B would result
in stranded investments from the development of TE2, suggesting that a
recission disregards the resources and effort put into developing the
test procedure. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at pp. 1-2; Simpson, No. 6 at p. 1)
Other commenters provided specific feedback regarding the burden of
the test method itself.
Rheem and AHRI commented in support of removing the TE2 metric and
appendix B from DOE's regulations on the basis that appendix B would
increase manufacturer test burden. (Rheem, No. 14 at p. 1; AHRI, no. 16
at p. 3) Trane commented that the CWAF test procedure at appendix B is
burdensome for manufacturer certification since manufacturers are
dependent on actual test data and must test many different
configurations because there are no established alternative efficiency
determination methods (``AEDMs'') to determine TE2. (Trane, No. 8 at p.
2) Trane commented that the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement
not to exceed 0.75 percent in jacket losses requires fewer models \6\
to be tested. However, due to the new jacket loss provisions in
appendix B and the TE2 metric, every model must be physically tested at
both maximum and minimum input rate. (Id. at pp. 2-3) Trane commented
that testing according to appendix A requires 3-4 weeks to set up each
unit before testing, whereas appendix B would require an additional 4
weeks per unit. (Id. at p. 2) Trane stated that overall, the test set-
up and testing duration is twice as long for appendix B compared to
appendix A, and appendix B costs an additional $6-8 million for the
added material, labor, time, and number of model configurations. (Id.
at pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The commenter refers to ``individual'' models; however, as
per 10 CFR 429.41, determinations of represented values for CWAFs
are based on testing ``basic'' models, which are defined at 10 CFR
431.72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane provided an example that one of their rooftop units required
an additional 1,600 thermocouples to perform the jacket-loss testing on
some of their largest cabinets. (Id. at p. 2) Trane also noted that
additional data scanners may be required due to the increased number of
measurements that need to be recorded. (Id.)
Additionally, Trane commented that furnace jackets within rooftop
cabinets are difficult to access, and, therefore, it is difficult to
place thermocouples for jacket-loss testing. (Trane, No. 8 at p. 3)
Moreover, Trane stated that laboratory resources are already
constrained by the number of available rooms, as well as physical space
limitations when seeking to test the larger cabinets. Trane stated that
currently it must perform appendix A testing of its larger equipment
outdoors because there are no test rooms available large enough to test
the equipment. (Id.) Trane stated that such testing must be scheduled
at times of the year and of the day that the outdoor ambient
temperature is within the range of room temperature as defined by the
test procedure. (Id.)
JCI commented in support of DOE's tentative determination that the
Department had previously underestimated the burden of the appendix B
test procedure. (JCI, No. 12 at pp. 1-2) The commenter stated that the
current sampling requirement requires testing a single unit, but that
if multiple units need to be tested to verify compliance, the time and
cost estimates would multiply, becoming unduly burdensome for JCI.
(Id.) JCI commented that appendix B will require extensive and
burdensome retesting compared to appendix A. JCI stated that it has
around 98 unique furnace configurations for different input rates,
airflow rates, and unit duct configurations, and that the appendix B
test method would require each configuration to be physically tested to
determine TE2. According to JCI, it would take over a year and over $1
million in testing costs to test all their units according to appendix
B. (JCI, No. 12 at p. 1)
AAON commented that appendix B would add unnecessary complexity
since it introduces additional setpoints and configurations not
validated through stakeholder input and imposes burden on laboratory
scheduling and reporting systems without corresponding benefit. (AAON,
No. 9 at p. 1)
AHRI commented that testing costs were not properly accounted for
in the previous rulemaking establishing the appendix B test procedure.
(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3) AHRI commented that the DOE test procedure at
appendix B requires jacket-loss testing on all units, which is a large
cost, whereas ASHRAE requires testing only on the worst unit in a
product line. (Id.) According to AHRI, testing laboratories are already
at capacity for regularly scheduled testing, thereby making additional
tests difficult. (Id.) AHRI reiterated its previous comments that
accessing the furnace jacket for testing may cause reduced panel
sealing of the unit which would negatively impact the results. This led
AHRI to argue that the additional granularity of test results would be
negligible, whereas the increased burden on manufacturers would be
substantial. (Id.)
Conversely, ASAP and ACEEE commented that in the June 2023 Final
Rule, DOE estimated testing costs for appendix B based on actual price
quotations from third-party laboratories and also estimated the cost to
develop an AEDM. ASAP and ACEEE cited DOE's conclusion that the
additional cost to determine TE2 compared to TE is not unduly
burdensome and is justified in light of the improved representativeness
of TE2 compared to TE. (ASAP and ACEEE, No. 13 at pp. 1-2) ASAP and
ACEEE stated that in the current May 2025 NOPR, DOE did not provide
supporting evidence for the claim that the test procedure cost and
burden associated with TE2 were underestimated in the June 2023 Final
Rule. (Id.)
NEEA commented that there is no current requirement for
manufacturers to rate their equipment according to appendix B, so the
least burdensome action would be to maintain the current test procedure
(consisting of both appendix A and appendix B). NEEA commented that the
removal of appendix B would be a burdensome regulatory action for DOE
and a confusing and burdensome pivot for stakeholders. (NEEA, No. 15 at
p. 2)
In response, DOE appreciates the additional data and information
that have been provided by manufacturers regarding the testing burden
associated with the TE2 test specified in appendix B and accords such
information due weight. As discussed in the previous section of this
document, DOE has reconsidered the uncertainties in both the increase
in representativeness and increase in test burden in terms of
[[Page 64111]]
increase in expenditures to test, constraints on testing facilities and
increase in time required to test additional configurations associated
with testing per appendix B as compared to appendix A. Based on these
considerations, as well as the policy directives specified in E.O.
14192, DOE is rescinding appendix B in this final rule.
E. Other Considerations
1. Regulatory Certainty
DOEE et al. commented that DOE's proposal to rescind the appendix B
test procedure and the TE2 metric would hurt consumers and cause
confusion and uncertainty for domestic and international manufacturers
of CWAFs. (DOEE et al., No. 10 at pp. 1-2) Similarly, NEEA commented
that DOE should uphold appendix B to maintain consistency and
predictability in the regulatory process, which NEEA stated provides a
stable business environment for U.S. manufacturers. (NEEA, No. 15 at
pp. 1-2)
As discussed, manufacturers currently determine compliance with
CWAF energy conservation standards based on testing in accordance with
appendix A. Manufacturers would be required to use appendix B only if
they choose to make optional representations of performance based on
the TE2 metric. DOE is not aware of any manufacturers choosing to make
such claims. Accordingly, DOE does not expect the withdrawal of the
appendix B test procedure to introduce any confusion or uncertainty for
consumers or manufacturers.
An individual commented that without a single, national test
procedure, testing will be split among multiple private methods
resulting in increased costs and uncertainty for manufacturers and end
users. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at p. 1) The individual also commented that a
single, national test procedure is essential to ensure inefficient
units do not enter the market and building owners can rely on published
ratings. (Id.)
In response, DOE notes that although this final rule is rescinding
the newly established appendix B test procedure, DOE is not rescinding
the current federal test procedure for CWAFs found in appendix A, the
use of which is required for making any representations with respect to
energy use or efficiency of CWAFs, including for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance with standards. DOE has determined that the
continued required usage of appendix A addresses the commenter's
concerns.
2. Competitiveness
DOE received comments regarding the impact of the May 2025 NOPR on
U.S. competitiveness in the marketplace.
An individual stated that the current regulations ensure the United
States remains competitive with global markets, and rescinding
standards would diminish the standing of the United States in the
international market and the potential for addressing the ``trade
imbalance.'' (Simpson, No. 6 at p. 1) Another individual commented that
rescinding appendix B risks reducing U.S. competitiveness in the
market. (Ravnitzky, No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
In this final rule, DOE is not modifying or rescinding any existing
energy conservation standards for CWAFs. As discussed, the appendix A
test procedure remains required for use to demonstrate compliance with
existing energy conservation standards. Consequently, DOE's action
would not trigger the competitiveness concerns raised by these
commenters.
3. Infrastructure and Environmental Impacts
An individual commented that unchecked inefficiency would increase
costs for businesses and end users, jeopardize national security by
straining infrastructure, and decrease reliability. (Ravnitzky, No. 7
at p. 1) The individual commented that even small efficiency increases
in CWAFs can save millions of therms of gas each year, flatten winter
peak-load spikes, reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, and bolster grid
resilience against extreme weather or supply disruptions. (Id.)
CBD commented that test procedures ensure that covered equipment
complies with energy conservation standards, which help limit pollution
and greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions. (CBD, No. 11 at p. 3) CBD
commented that standards ensure cost savings for consumers by creating
more efficient appliances, which lowers utility bills, and rescinding
the CWAF test procedures will undermine the administration's goal of
lowering energy costs for American citizens. (Id.)
In response and as discussed previously, in this final rule, DOE is
not amending or rescinding the appendix A test procedure or the energy
conservation standards for CWAFs. Use of appendix A remains required
for demonstrating compliance with existing standards for CWAFs.
III. Conclusions
After carefully considering the comments received on the May 2025
NOPR, DOE has determined that there is considerable uncertainty
regarding the magnitude of any increased representativeness of the
appendix B test procedure vis-a-vis the current appendix A test
procedure, as well as uncertainty regarding the increase in test burden
between those two test procedures. Consistent with the policies and
directives outlined in E.O. 14192, ``Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation,'' and DOE's proposed revisions to sections 8(c) and 9(b)
of the Process Rule, DOE has determined that an uncertain increase in
representativeness does not outweigh the likely increase in test
burden. EPCA requires that DOE's test procedures be reasonably designed
to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and
estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle
while not being unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)).
DOE has concluded that this balance between representativeness and
burden is not met by the new appendix B test procedure and for this
reason, and those reasons discussed in the preceding sections of this
document, DOE is withdrawing the test procedure for commercial warm air
furnaces at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B. Commercial warm air
furnaces will continue to be subject to the testing requirements of 10
CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix A.
In this final rule, DOE is removing the definition of ``thermal
efficiency two'' and removing 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B as
proposed in the May 2025 NOPR. DOE is additionally making minor
conforming revisions to sections 10 CFR 431.75 and 431.76 (``Materials
incorporated by reference'' and the ``Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces,''
respectively) as ancillary to the changes proposed in the May 2025 NOPR
so as to eliminate references to removed appendix B.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Section 6(a) of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires agencies to
submit ``significant regulatory actions'' to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for review. OIRA has determined that this final
regulatory action constitutes a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly,
[[Page 64112]]
this action was submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866.
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 Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996)
requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(``IRFA'') and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any
final rule where the agency was first required by law to publish a
proposed rule 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 E.O. 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 rulemaking process.
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the
Office of the General Counsel's website (<a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>).
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. This final rule rescinds a test procedure that would apply to
future standards (if such standards denominated in terms of the TE2
metric are adopted) but leaves in place the test procedure
corresponding to the current standards (denominated in terms of thermal
efficiency (``TE'')). Therefore, since manufacturers are not currently
required to use the TE2 test procedure, DOE concludes that the impacts
of its burden-reducing proposal would not have a ``significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities,'' and, therefore, the
preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a
certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under existing provisions, manufacturers of covered products/
equipment must certify to DOE that their products comply with any
applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test
procedures for such products/equipment, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures, on the date that compliance is
required. DOE has established regulations for the certification and
recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and
commercial equipment (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 35 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
This final rule would impose no new information or record-keeping
requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the
Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE stated that it was analyzing the proposed
rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA'') (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021) in effect at the time of the May 2025
NOPR's publication. In the May 2025 NOPR, DOE anticipated that the May
2025 NOPR qualified for a categorical exclusion because the NOPR was an
interpretation or ruling with respect to an existing regulation and
otherwise met the requirements for application of a categorical
exclusion. 90 FR 20909, 20912 (May 16, 2025).
DOE has analyzed this action in accordance with NEPA, as amended,
DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (set forth in 10 CFR part 1021),
and DOE's NEPA implementing procedures (published outside the Code of
Federal Regulations on July 13, 2026 (Available at: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/doe-nepa-implementing-procedures-july-13-2026">www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/doe-nepa-implementing-procedures-july-13-2026</a>)). On July
3, 2025, DOE published an interim final rule in the Federal Register
which revised 10 CFR part 1021 to contain only administrative and
routine actions excepted from NEPA review in appendix A, its existing
categorical exclusions in appendix B, related requirements, and a
provision for emergency circumstances. 90 FR 29676. DOE notes that
appendix A in 10 CFR part 1021 (formerly categorical exclusions) are
now administrative and routine actions that are excepted from NEPA
based on the definition of ``major Federal action'' in section 111(10)
of NEPA.
In this document, DOE considers the appendix B test procedure for
CWAFs. After careful review, DOE has determined that the test procedure
at appendix B for CWAF should be withdrawn. DOE analyzed the
determination in accordance with NEPA and determined that this action
is administrative and routine. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, paragraph
A4. DOE has determined that as an administrative and routine action it
is not a major Federal action subject to review under NEPA. For more
information, please see appendix A of 10 CFR part 1021 (``A4,
Interpretations and Rulings for Existing Regulations''), and Section
2.1 (5) of DOE's NEPA implementing procedures.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism
implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess
the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in the development of such
regulations. 65 FR 13735.
DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment that is the subject of this final
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
[[Page 64113]]
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297; 42 U.S.C. 6316) Therefore, no further action is
required by E.O. 13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation:
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light
of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards
of E.O. 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
<a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf</a>.
DOE examined this final rule according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule, which reduces regulatory burdens,
does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, nor is it
expected to require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one
year by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by
the private sector. Accordingly, no further assessment is required
under UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any policy or regulation that may affect
family well-being. When developing a Family Policymaking Assessment,
agencies must assess whether: (1) the action strengthens or erodes the
stability or safety of the family and, particularly, the marital
commitment; (2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision of their
children; (3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function; (4) the action
increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and
children; (5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the financial
impact on the family; (6) the action may be carried out by State or
local government or by the family; and whether (7) the action
establishes an implicit or explicit policy concerning the relationship
between the behavior and personal responsibility of youth, and the
norms of society.
This final rule, which rescinds a test procedure for future
application, would not have any financial impact on families nor any
impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a
Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March
18, 1988), DOE has determined that this final rule would not result in
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to
review most disseminations of information to the public under
information quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to
general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67
FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are available at: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines">www.energy.gov/cio/department-energy-information-quality-guidelines</a>. DOE has reviewed
this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that
it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency
that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final
rule, and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under E.O.
12866, or any successor order, and is likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is
designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.
For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use
if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and
use.
The regulatory action in this document, which rescinds a test
procedure for future application, is a
[[Page 64114]]
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. However, it is not a
``significant energy action'' because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
L. Review Under Additional Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
DOE has examined this final rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the policies and directives outlined in E.O. 14154,
``Unleashing American Energy,'' 90 FR 8353 (Jan. 29, 2025); E.O. 14192,
``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,'' 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6,
2025); and Presidential Memorandum, ``Delivering Emergency Price Relief
for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis,'' 90 FR
8245 (Jan. 28, 2025). This final rule has been determined to be an
``E.O. 14192 deregulatory action'' because it removes an optional test
procedure which is likely to increase test burden, if adopted.
Additionally, rescinding the appendix B test procedure provides more
regulatory certainty for manufacturers by ensuring the Federal test
procedure will remain aligned with the industry standard, as appendix A
is currently aligned with the test procedure as referenced in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1.
M. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress and to the
Comptroller General a report on this final rule before its effective
date. The report will state that it has been determined that this final
rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by
reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on September
30, 2026, by Audrey Robertson, Assistant Secretary (EERE) for Critical
Minerals and Energy Innovation, pursuant to delegated authority from
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2026.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of
chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Sec. 431.72 [Amended]
0
2. Amend Sec. 431.72 by removing the definition for ``Thermal
efficiency two.''
0
3. In Sec. 431.75, paragraph (c)(1) is amended by removing
``appendices A and B'' and adding in its place ``appendix A''.
0
4. Amend Sec. 431.76 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 431.76 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.
* * * * *
(b) Testing and Calculations. Test in accordance with appendix A to
this subpart when making representations of thermal efficiency.
Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 431 [Amended]
0
5. Amend appendix A to subpart D of part 431 by removing the
introductory note.
Appendix B to Subpart D of Part 431 [Removed]
0
6. Remove appendix B to subpart D of part 431.
[FR Doc. 2026-20517 Filed 10-6-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 7, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.