This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposedissuance of rules and regulations. Thepurpose of these notices is to give interestedpersons an opportunity to participate in therule making prior to the adoption of the finalrules.Proposed RulesFederal Register55038 
Vol. 80, No. 177 
Monday, September 14, 2015 
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 
10 CFR Part 430 
[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 
0031] 
RIN 1904–AD20 
Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces 
AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. 
ACTION : Notice of data availability. 
SUMMARY : The U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) has completed a provisional analysis of the potential economic impacts and energy savings that could result from promulgating amended energy conservation standards for residential non-weatherized gas furnaces (NWGFs) that include two product classes defined by input capacity and has published the data on its Web page. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis. 
DATES : DOE will accept comments, data, 
and information regarding this NODA no later than October 14, 2015. See section IV for details. 
ADDRESSES : Any comments submitted 
must identify the NODA for Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces, and provide docket number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0031 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number 1904–AD20. Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods: 
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 
www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. 
2. Email: ResFurnaces2014STD0031@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 
and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic comments in Word Perfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form on encryption. 
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586–2945. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. 
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 
accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of this document (Submission of Comments). 
Docket: The docket, which includes 
Federal Register documents, 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 for access to the docket Web 
page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/
rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=62. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents in the docket. 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Mr. 
John Cymbalsky, 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) 287–1692. Email: residential_ furnaces_ and_ boilers@
ee.doe.gov. 
Ms. Johanna Hariharan, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507 or (202) 287–6307. Email: Johanna.Hariharan@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to 
review other public comments and the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : 
Table of Contents 
I. Background 
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by 
DOE 
A. Introduction B. Engineering Analysis C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 
Analyses 
1. Furnace Size Assignment 2. Energy Prices 3. Other Updates D. National Impact Analysis 
III. Results of the Analysis 
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers B. National Impacts 
IV. Submission of Comments 
I. Background 
On March 10, 2015, DOE published in 
the Federal Register a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) and 
public meeting to amend energy conservation standards for residential non-weatherized gas furnaces (NWGF) and mobile home gas furnaces (MHGF). 80 FR 13119. The proposed standards, which are expressed as minimum annual fuel utilization efficiencies (AFUE), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all products listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into, the United States on or after the date 5 years after the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking. 
TABLE I.1—P ROPOSED AFUE E NERGY  
CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR  
NON-WEATHERIZED GASFURNACES  
AND MOBILE HOME GASFURNACES  
(TSL 3) 
Product class AFUE % 
Non-Weatherized Gas-Fired 
Furnaces ........................... 92 
Mobile Home Gas-Fired Fur-
naces ................................. 92 
A number of stakeholders objected to 
a national standard at 92 percent AFUE, which would effectively only be able to be met by using condensing technology. The objections raised by stakeholders covered a wide range of issues, but the negative impacts of the proposed 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55039 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
standards on some furnace consumers 
were highlighted by many stakeholders. 
A letter dated June 8, 2015, signed by 
121 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, expressed concern that a nationwide energy efficiency standard that effectively precludes a consumer from choosing to install a non- condensing furnace would result in many homeowners either abandoning the use of natural gas to heat their homes or paying substantially more for the installation of a furnace that meets the new standard. It stated that many families will be faced with the difficult choice of having to replace their non- condensing furnace with either a condensing furnace with higher installation costs or electric heat and accompanying higher monthly energy bills. (United States House of Representatives, No. 67 at p. 1) Comments from the Pennsylvania Chambers of Commerce, Business, and Industry, Meeks, Payne, Jr., Bishop, Jr., and Carrier make similar statements. (Pennsylvania Chambers of Commerce, Business, and Industry, No. 82 at p. 1; Meeks, No. 140 at p. 1; Payne, Jr., No. 75 at p. 1; Bishop, Jr., No. 76 at p. 1) 
The American Gas Association (AGA), 
Goodman, and American Energy Alliance (AEA et al.) stated that even assuming DOE’s analysis is correct, many consumers could incur costs under the proposed standard. They stated that, according to DOE’s analysis, 20 percent of households nationwide would face higher life-cycle costs under the proposed standard, and in the replacement market, one-quarter of all households replacing their natural gas furnaces would see a life-cycle cost increase. (AGA, No. 118 at p. 27; AEA et al., No. 69 at p. 1; Goodman, No. 135 at p. 2) AGA, Goodman, and Southern Gas Association (SGA) added that consumers in the South and low-income families would be disproportionately impacted. (AGA, No. 118 at p. 27; Goodman, No. 135 at p. 2; SGA, No. 145 at p. 1) 
The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), Carrier, Rheem, and Ingersoll Rand expressed concern that the proposed standards will result in 10–20 percent of homes switching from gas furnaces to electric heat pumps because venting of a condensing gas furnace is difficult to impossible. (AHRI, No. 159 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 116 at p. 2; Rheem, No. 142 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 156 at p. 2) AGA expressed a similar concern, and asserted that the resulting adverse energy and environmental impacts of this fuel switching are very substantial. (AGA, No. 118 at p. 28) Several stakeholders, who expressed 
general support for the proposed standards and suggested more stringent standards could be justified, provided a recommendation for reducing negative impacts on some furnace consumers while maintaining the overall economic and environmental benefits of the standards. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) recommended that DOE establish a separate product class for small furnaces (tentatively those with an input capacity of 50,000 Btu/hour or less) and leave the standard level for these units at 80- percent AFUE, while adopting a higher standard level of 95-percent AFUE for larger furnaces. (ACEEE, No. 113 at p. 1) The Alliance to Save Energy made a similar recommendation, but referred to an input capacity of no more than 50,000 to 65,000 Btu/hour for smaller furnaces. (Alliance to Save Energy, No. 115 at p. 1) The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) urged DOE to adopt an 80-percent AFUE standard level for furnaces below a specified maximum capacity threshold, and set the capacity threshold low enough that the national energy, economic, and environmental benefits are largely preserved while allowing consumers in small and moderately-sized, well insulated and weatherized homes in moderate and warm climates to have a non-condensing option. (NRDC, No. 134 at p. 2) AGLR stated that DOE should establish a separate product class for small furnaces with an input capacity of less than 45,000 Btu/hour, citing section 305(f) of EPCA as authority for DOE to establish separate product classes based on product capacity. (AGLR, No. 112 at pp. 15–16) 
ACEEE also stated that creating two 
product classes based on furnace size would reduce the number of households that would experience net costs under the proposed standard (many of whom are in the south). ACEEE stated that many of the consumers who would experience net costs will have small furnaces and recommended that DOE specifically examine this issue and estimate the economics of separate standard levels as a function of furnace input capacity. ACEEE noted that a size threshold provides another option for some households with very high installation costs—if they weatherize their home and get the needed capacity below 50,000 Btu/h, they can avoid the extra installation cost of a condensing furnace. ACEEE added that a size threshold would not present the potential enforcement challenges associated with regional standards. (ACEEE, No. 113 at p. 3) Although DOE believes that the 
standards proposed in the March 2015 NOPR meet the statutory criteria for amended standards, given the concerns and suggestions described above, DOE undertook an analysis of the consumer economics and national impacts of establishing separate standard levels for large and small residential furnaces. In so doing, it examined the effect of alternative size thresholds for a small furnace. Because the issues raised by stakeholders primarily concern NWGFs, DOE only considered that product in its analysis and did not examine mobile home gas furnaces. The analysis is described in section II of this NODA; section III provides the results of the analysis. 
DOE notes that this NODA does not 
propose any energy conservation standards for residential furnaces. DOE may revise the analyses presented in today’s NODA based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during the course of the rulemaking. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any additional data or information that may improve the analysis. 
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed 
by DOE 
DOE conducted an analysis of the 
consumer impacts (life-cycle cost and payback period) and national impacts (national energy savings and net present value of national benefits) of potential standard levels for the considered NWGF product classes. The tools used in preparing these analyses and their respective results are available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_ standards/
rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=62. Each 
individual spreadsheet includes an introduction that provides an overview of the contents of the spreadsheet. These spreadsheets present the various inputs and outputs to the analysis and, where necessary, instructions. Brief descriptions of the analyses and of the supporting spreadsheet tools are provided below. 
If DOE were to consider adopting 
energy conservation standards for residential furnaces that set separate levels based on input capacity, it would do so in a future supplemental NOPR (SNOPR). DOE would also publish a technical support document (TSD) containing a detailed written account of the analyses performed in support of the SNOPR, which will include updates to the analyses made available in this NODA. 
The analysis conducted for this 
NODA used the same analytical 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55040 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
1Please see the March 2015 NOPR and the 
accompanying TSD for details, which are available 
at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_ standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=62. 
2The shares in Table II.2 reflect the likelihood 
that some consumers would down-size a new furnace to meet the ‘‘small furnace’’ definition. See 
section II.C for discussion. 
3DOE uses 5-year averages for metal materials 
and current prices for all other materials. 4U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 
Administration, Residential Energy Consumption Survey: 2009 RECS Survey Data (2013), available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/ (last accessed July 29, 2015). framework as the March 2015 NOPR.1 
Key aspects of the present analysis and 
DOE’s updates to the NOPR analysis are described in the sections below. A. Introduction 
The analysis conducted for this 
NODA estimated impacts for the 
potential standard level combinations shown in Table II.1. The key aspect of this analysis is that only large furnaces would need to use condensing 
technology to meet the standard. Thus, households installing a small furnace would not need to incur the costs associated with installing a condensing furnace. 
TABLE II.1—P OTENTIAL STANDARD LEVEL COMBINATIONS ANALYZED FOR LARGE AND SMALL FURNACES  
Furnance size Annual fuel utilization efficiency (%) 
Large ................................................................................................................ 90 92 95 9 8 
Small ................................................................................................................ 80 80 80 80 
This NODA analysis used the same 
sample of residential furnace consumers 
as the March 2015 NOPR. Each sample household was assigned a furnace size (in terms of input capacity) based on a number of features, as discussed in section II.C. The share of households that would install a small furnace depends on how ‘‘small furnace’’ is defined in terms of input capacity. For this analysis, DOE considered the following small furnace definitions: ≤45 kBtu/hour, ≤50 kBtu/hour, ≤55 kBtu/
hour, ≤60 kBtu/hour, and ≤65 kBtu/hour. In each case, large furnaces would be defined as all sizes above the given thresholds. The share of households that would install a furnace meeting a small furnace standard rises as the size cutoff in the small furnace definition increases, as illustrated in Table II.2.
2 
TABLE II.2—S HARE OF SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS BY FURNACE SIZE 
[percent] 
Furnace size Small furnace definition 
≤45 kBtu/hour ≤50 kBtu/hour ≤55 kBtu/hour ≤60 kBtu/hour ≤65 kBtu/hour 
Large .................................................................................... 92 86 85 68 62 
Small .................................................................................... 8 14 15 32 38 
Total .............................................................................. 100 100 100 100 100 
B. Engineering Analysis 
The engineering analysis establishes 
the relationship between the 
manufacturer production cost (MPC) and energy efficiency for residential furnaces. This relationship between MPC and energy efficiency serves as the basis for calculations performed in the other analysis tools to estimate the costs and benefits to individual consumers, manufacturers, and the nation. For each NWGF efficiency level that was analyzed, the MPC was estimated for four furnace capacities (60 kBtu/hour, 80 kBtu/hour, 100 kBtu/hour, and 120 kBtu/hour). For the NODA analysis, DOE updated the MPCs from the NOPR to incorporate the most recent available data for material,
3component, labor, 
and overhead costs, and also updated the MPCs to 2014$. C. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 
Analyses 
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 
period (PBP) analyses determine the economic impact of potential standards on individual consumers who purchase a furnace in the expected compliance year (assumed to be 2021 for this 
analysis). The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing and operating a residential furnace over the course of its lifetime. DOE determines the LCC by considering: (1) The total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of manufacturer selling price, distribution channel markups, sales taxes, and installation costs); (2) the annual energy consumption (natural gas or LPG and electricity) of residential furnaces as they are used in the field; (3) the operating cost of residential furnaces (i.e., energy cost and maintenance and 
repair cost); (4) equipment lifetime; and (5) a discount rate that reflects the consumer cost of capital and puts the LCC in present-value terms. The PBP 
represents the number of years needed to recover the increase in purchase price of higher-efficiency residential furnaces through savings in the operating cost. 
For each considered standards case, 
DOE measures the change in LCC relative to a no-new-standards case, which reflects the market in the absence of amended energy conservation standards, including market trends for equipment that exceeds the current energy conservation standards. 
In the March 2015 NOPR and in 
today’s NODA, DOE developed 
nationally-representative household samples for residential furnaces from the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS).
4DOE 
analyzed the net effect of potential amended residential furnace standards on consumers by calculating the LCC savings and PBP for each household by efficiency level. 
DOE performed the LCC and PBP 
analyses using a spreadsheet model 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:33 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55041 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
5Crystal Ball is a commercial software program 
developed by Oracle and used to conduct stochastic 
analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A Monte Carlo simulation uses random sampling over many iterations of the simulation to obtain a probability distribution of results. Certain key inputs to the analysis are defined as probability distributions rather than single-point values. 
6The distribution of input capacity is based on 
shipments data by input capacity bins for the year 2000 provided by AHRI (AHRI (formerly GAMA). Furnace and Boiler Shipments data provided to DOE for Furnace and Boiler ANOPR. January 23, 2002). AHRI data was further disaggregated into 5- kBtu/h bins using the reduced models dataset from the NOPR analysis. Appendix 7B of the NOPR TSD provides details about furnace sizing method. 7Energy Information Administration (EIA), 
Survey form EIA–861—Annual Electric Power Industry Report (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/index.html ) (Last accessed 
July 15, 2015). 
8Energy Information Administration (EIA), 
Natural Gas Navigator (Available at: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/ng_ pri_sum_ dcu_ nus_
m.htm) (Last accessed July 15, 2015). 
9Energy Information Administration (EIA), State 
Energy Data System (SEDS) (Available at: http://
www.eia.gov/state/seds/ ) (Last accessed July 15, 
2015). 
10For the NOPR, 2012 energy prices from the 
same sources were used. 
11Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
Institute. Personal communication. May 12, 2015. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0031-0052. 
12For the NOPR, the AHRI shipments data was 
not available and DOE instead relied on shipments data from the ENERGY STAR program to derive its estimates. Based on the AHRI shipments data, DOE’s estimate of the condensing furnace market share in 2021 increased from 47-percent in the NOPR to 53-percent in the NODA. 13Office of Management and Budget, OMB 
Circular A–4, section E, Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs (2003), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03- 21.html. combined with Crystal Ball5to account 
for uncertainty and variability among 
the input variables. Each Monte Carlo simulation consists of 10,000 LCC and PBP calculations using input values that are either sampled from probability distributions and household samples or characterized with single point values. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level relative to the no- new-standards case efficiency distribution. In performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product efficiency. 
1. Furnace Size Assignment 
For the March 2015 NOPR, DOE 
assigned an input capacity for the 
existing furnace of each housing unit based on an algorithm that correlates the heating square footage and the outdoor design temperature for heating (i.e., the 
temperature that is exceeded by the 30- year minimum average temperature 1 percent of the time) with the distribution of input capacity of furnaces.
6DOE assumed that, for the 
new furnace installation, the input 
capacity would remain the same. DOE’s analysis accounted for the typical over- sizing of furnace capacity (i.e., the 
furnace is larger than it needs to be to fulfill the building heating load). 
If there is a separate standard for 
small furnaces, DOE expects that some consumers who would otherwise install a typically-oversized furnace would choose to down-size in order to be able to purchase a non-condensing furnace. For the NODA analysis, DOE identified those sample households that might down-size at the considered small furnace definitions. DOE first determined if a household would install a non-condensing furnace with an input capacity greater than the small furnace size limit without amended standards. In the standards case, DOE assumed that a fraction of such consumers would down-size to the input capacity limit for small furnaces. 
2. Energy Prices 
For this NODA, DOE updated current 
energy prices and also the projection of 
future energy prices. Current average and marginal monthly energy prices are based on the latest data (2013 energy prices) from EIA (Form 861 data
7to 
calculate commercial electricity prices, Natural Gas Navigator
8to calculate 
commercial natural gas prices, and State Energy Data System
9to calculate LPG 
prices). The update to 2013 energy prices had a very small impact on the LCC and PBP results.
10Future energy 
prices are based on the projection of average annual percent change in national-average residential natural gas and electricity prices in the Annual Energy Outlook 2015 (AEO 2015). 
3. Other Updates 
For this NODA, DOE updated the 
efficiency distribution in the no-new- 
standards case to reflect AHRI shipments data from 2010 to 2014.
11 
The update resulted in decreased fraction of consumers being impacted by an efficiency standard requiring efficiencies of 90-percent AFUE and above.
12DOE also made minor updates 
to the markups, product price trend, and the building shell efficiency and climate indexes used to adjust energy use. These are described in the LCC spreadsheet. D. National Impact Analysis 
The national impacts analysis (NIA) 
estimates the national energy savings (NES) and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential new standards. DOE calculated NES and NPV as the difference between a case without amended standards and each standards case. 
DOE calculated the annual energy 
consumption for each case using the appropriate per-unit annual energy use data multiplied by the projected residential furnaces shipments for each year. To estimate impacts of separate standards for small and large furnaces, DOE needed to disaggregate NWGF shipments by input capacity. To do so, DOE assumed that the shares of each size category in NWGF shipments are the same as the shares estimated for the household sample. The shares were assumed to remain constant over time. 
Cumulative energy savings are the 
sum of the annual NES determined for the lifetime of furnaces shipped during a 30-year period assumed to start in the expected compliance year. Energy savings include the full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e., the energy needed 
to extract, process, and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those fuel sources). 
To develop the national NPV of 
consumer benefits from potential energy conservation standards, DOE calculated projected annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs) and annual installation costs for the no- new-standards case and the standards cases. DOE calculated annual energy expenditures from annual energy consumption using forecasted energy prices in each year. DOE calculated annual product expenditures by multiplying the price per unit times the projected shipments in each year. 
The aggregate difference each year 
between operating cost savings and increased installation costs is the net savings or net costs. DOE multiplies the net savings in future years by a discount factor to determine their present value. DOE estimates the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent and a 7- percent real discount rate, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis.
13 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55042 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
14The analysis used the same definition of the 
South region as the March 2015 NOPR. 15The results for a single standard for all furnaces 
differ slightly from the results in the March 2015 
NOPR because of the input revisions discussed in section II. DOE believes that showing a direct 
comparison with the NOPR results would not serve 
the purpose of the NODA analysis. For the NODA analysis, DOE updated 
energy price trends and several other 
inputs with data from AEO 2015, as described in the NIA spreadsheet. 
III. Results of the Analysis 
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers 
As mentioned in section II.C, for each 
considered standards case, DOE 
measures the change in LCC relative to a no-new-standards case. For example, in the case of a separate standard of 90- percent AFUE for large furnaces and 80- 
percent AFUE for small furnaces, the analysis reflects the likelihood that some consumers would purchase a furnace at or above those efficiency levels without standards, and thus would not be affected by the standards. The average LCC savings in Table III.1 only include those consumers who would be affected at a given standard 
level. 
Table III.2 shows the percentage of 
consumers that would experience a net cost under each considered standards 
case, and Table III.3 shows the percentage of consumers in the South that would experience a net cost.
14For 
these consumers, the LCC would increase under the standard compared to the furnace they would purchase in no-new-standards case. As expected, the percentage of consumers that would experience a net cost declines as the definition of small furnace expands to include more furnaces. 
TABLE III.1—A VERAGE LCC S AVINGS FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD LEVEL COMBINATIONS  
[2014$] 
Minimum AFUE (%) Average LCC savings (2014$) * 
Large Small Small furnace definition (kBtu/hour) 
≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
90 80 $383 $400 $400 $492 $484 
92 80 463 478 479 553 525 
95 80 439 447 449 479 437 
98 80 365 372 374 388 347 
* The average LCC savings only include those consumers who would be affected at a given standard level. 
TABLE III.2—S HARE OF ALLCONSUMERS EXPERIENCING A NETCOST FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD LEVEL 
COMBINATIONS  
Minimum AFUE (%) % of consumers experiencing a net cost 
Large Small Small furnace definition (kBtu/hour) 
≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
90 80 19 15 13 11 7 
92 80 17 13 12 10 6 
95 80 21 17 15 12 9 
98 80 35 34 33 26 23 
TABLE III.3—S HARE OF CONSUMERS IN THE SOUTH EXPERIENCING A NETCOST FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD  
LEVEL COMBINATIONS  
Minimum AFUE (%) % of consumers in the south experiencing a net cost 
Large Small Small furnace definition (kBtu/hour) 
≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
90 80 27 20 19 13 7 
92 80 25 18 17 11 7 
95 80 28 22 21 14 10 
98 80 35 31 30 20 14 
Table III.4 compares the key 
consumer economic impacts of a single 
standard for all furnaces to a separate standard for large and small furnaces.
15 
Under a separate standard for large and small furnaces, the average LCC savings increase somewhat but the share of consumers with a net cost declines considerably. The impacts of a separate standard for large and small furnaces would vary depending on the small furnace definition. For example, if the definition was ≤60 kBtu/hour instead of 
≤55 kBtu/hour, the difference between the single standard for all furnaces and separate standards for large and small furnaces would be greater than shown. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55043 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
16The results in Table III.6 overstate the 
percentage of low-income households that would 
actually be negatively impacted by proposed 
higher-efficiency furnace standards. Close to 60 percent of low-income households in RECS 2009 are either renters or residents of public housing. In 
these cases, the furnace would be purchased by the property owner, and the cost of a higher-efficiency 
furnace might be passed on over time in the rent (or perhaps not all in the case of public housing). DOE’s current analysis assumes that in cases where 
the property owner does not pay for energy, the cost of a higher-efficiency furnace is passed on 
immediately, which would tend to overstate any negative impact. TABLE III.4—C OMPARISON OF CONSUMER IMPACTS OF SINGLE STANDARD VS . SEPARATE STANDARD FOR LARGE AND  
SMALL FURNACES * 
Single standard for all furnaces Separate standard for large and small furnaces 
AFUE (%) Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) AFUE (%) large/small Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) 
90 .................................. $347 20 90/80 ............................ $400 13 
92 .................................. 425 18 92/80 ............................ 479 12 
95 .................................. 420 22 95/80 ............................ 449 15 
98 .................................. 343 41 98/80 ............................ 374 33 
* Using small furnace definition of ≤55 kBtu/hour. 
Table III.5 and Table III.6 show a 
similar comparison for consumers in the south and low-income consumers, with 
similar results.16 
TABLE III.5—C OMPARISON OF IMPACTS FOR CONSUMERS IN THE SOUTH OF SINGLE STANDARD VS . SEPARATE STANDARD  
FORLARGE AND SMALL FURNACES * 
Single standard for all furnaces Separate standard for large and small furnaces 
AFUE (%) Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) AFUE (%) large/small Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) 
90 .................................. $291 31 90/80 ............................ $335 19 
92 .................................. 357 28 92/80 ............................ 405 17 
95 .................................. 357 33 95/80 ............................ 379 21 
98 .................................. 319 44 98/80 ............................ 368 30 
* Using small furnace definition of ≤55 kBtu/hour. 
TABLE III.6—C OMPARISON OF IMPACTS FOR LOW-INCOME CONSUMERS OF SINGLE STANDARD VS . SEPARATE STANDARD  
FORLARGE AND SMALL FURNACES * 
Single standard for all furnaces Separate standard for large and small furnaces 
AFUE (%) Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) AFUE (%) large/small Avg. LCC savings 
(2014$) Share of consumers 
with net cost (%) 
90 .................................. $210 22 90/80 ............................ $274 12 
92 .................................. 301 20 92/80 ............................ 379 11 
95 .................................. 363 24 95/80 ............................ 423 13 
98 .................................. 356 44 98/80 ............................ 447 31 
* Using small furnace definition of ≤55 kBtu/hour. 
In the NOPR analysis, DOE estimated 
that some consumers faced with significant costs to install a condensing furnace would instead choose to switch to electric heating with a heat pump or electric furnace. If there were a separate, lower standard level for small furnaces, fewer consumers would be faced with installing a condensing furnace, and 
there would be less switching. Table III.7 shows this outcome. 
TABLE III.7—C OMPARISON OF FUELSWITCHING IMPACTS OF SINGLE STANDARD VS . SEPARATE STANDARD FOR LARGE  
ANDSMALL FURNACES * 
Single standard for all furnaces Separate standard for large and small furnaces 
AFUE (%) Switch to heat pump 
(% of consumers) Switch to electric 
furnace 
(% of consumers) AFUE (%) 
large/small Switch to heat pump 
(% of consumers) Switch to electric 
furnace 
(% of consumers) 
90 .................................. 6.7 3.0 90/80 ............................ 2.9 1.8 
92 .................................. 6.9 3.1 92/80 ............................ 3.0 1.9 
95 .................................. 8.3 3.5 95/80 ............................ 3.9 2.3 
98 .................................. 11.7 4.2 98/80 ............................ 6.5 2.8 
* Using small furnace definition of ≤55 kBtu/hour. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55044 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
17In terms of FFC energy, switching from gas to 
electricity increases energy use considerably because of the losses in thermal electricity 
generation. B. National Impacts 
The estimated national energy savings 
(full-fuel-cycle) of the considered 
combinations of minimum AFUE for large and small furnaces are shown in 
Table III.8. 
Table III.9 and Table III.10 show the 
national NPV of benefits for alternative furnace standard level combinations at 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, 
respectively. The national energy savings decrease as the small furnace definition expands. 
TABLE III.8—N ATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD LEVEL COMBINATIONS  
[Quads] 
Minimum AFUE (%) Small furnace definition 
(kBtu/hour) 
Large Small ≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
92 80 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.3 1.8 
95 80 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.4 2.8 
98 80 5.8 5.7 5.7 4.9 4.2 
TABLE III.9—N ATIONAL NETPRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD LEVEL COMBINATIONS  
AT7-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE 
[Billion 2014$] 
Minimum AFUE (%) Small furnace definition 
(kBtu/hour) 
Large Small ≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
92 80 3.1 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.4 
95 80 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.2 3.6 
98 80 3.8 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.0 
TABLE III.10—N ATIONAL NETPRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS FOR ALTERNATIVE FURNACE STANDARD LEVEL 
COMBINATIONS AT 3-PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE 
[Billion 2014$] 
Minimum AFUE (%) Small furnace definition 
(kBtu/hour) 
Large Small ≤45 ≤50 ≤55 ≤60 ≤65 
92 80 14.7 14.8 14.8 11.8 9.1 
95 80 20.2 20.1 20.0 16.9 13.9 
98 80 23.9 24.0 23.9 21.3 18.4 
Table III.11 compares the national 
energy savings and NPV of a single 
standard for all furnaces vs. a separate standard for large and small furnaces. The national energy savings are higher in the case of a separate standard for large and small furnaces mainly because there is less switching from gas to electric heating.
17The NPV is higher in 
the case of a separate standard for large and small furnaces mainly because the LCC savings are higher. The impacts of a separate standard for large and small furnaces would vary depending on the small furnace definition. 
TABLE III.11—C OMPARISON OF NATIONAL IMPACTS OF SINGLE STANDARD VS . SEPARATE STANDARD FOR LARGE AND  
SMALL FURNACES * 
Single standard for all furnaces Separate standard for large and small furnaces 
AFUE (%) National energy 
savings 
(quads) National net present 
value, 7% 
(billion 2014$) AFUE (%) 
large/small National energy 
savings (quads) National net present 
value, 7% 
(billion 2014$) 
92 .................................. 2.6 2.2 92/80 ............................ 2.9 3.5 
95 .................................. 3.9 3.3 95/80 ............................ 4.1 4.6 
98 .................................. 5.4 2.6 98/80 ............................ 5.7 4.4 
* Using small furnace definition of ≤55 kBtu/hour. 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS55045 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 177 / Monday, September 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 
IV. Submission of Comments 
DOE will accept comments, data, and 
information regarding this analysis 
before or after the public meeting, but no later than the date provided in the 
DATES section at the beginning of this 
document. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the 
ADDRESSES section at 
the beginning of this document. 
Submitting comments via 
www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page will 
require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. 
However, your contact information 
will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. 
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 
as CBI. Comments received through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section below. 
DOE processes submissions made 
through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully 
uploaded your comment. 
Submitting comments via email, hand 
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 
documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you 
do not want your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments 
Include contact information each time 
you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 
Comments, data, and other 
information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. 
Confidential Business Information. 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked 
copies: One copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. 
Factors of interest to DOE when 
evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest. 
It is DOE’s policy that all comments 
may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). 
Issued in Washington, DC, on September 4, 
2015. 
Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 
[FR Doc. 2015–23021 Filed 9–11–15; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
Federal Aviation Administration 
14 CFR Part 39 
[Docket No. FAA–2015–3628; Directorate 
Identifier 2015–NM–025–AD] 
RIN 2120–AA64 
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 
Company Airplanes 
AGENCY : Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA), DOT. 
ACTION : Notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM). 
SUMMARY : We propose to supersede 
Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2012–12– 04, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 737–300, –400, and –500 series airplanes. AD 2012–12–04 currently requires repetitive external detailed inspections and nondestructive inspections to detect cracks in the fuselage skin along the chem-mill steps at stringers S–1 and S–2R, between station (STA) 400 and STA 460, and repair if necessary. Since we issued AD 2012–12–04, we have determined that, for certain airplanes, the skin pockets adjacent to the Air Traffic Control (ATC) antenna are susceptible to widespread fatigue damage. This proposed AD would require a preventive modification of the fuselage skin at crown stringers S–1 and S–2R. This proposed AD would reduce inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals for certain airplanes. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the fuselage skin panels at the chem-mill steps, which could result in sudden fracture and failure of the fuselage skin panels, 
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Sep 11, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14SEP1.SGM 14SEP1tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS