Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 2 January 3, 2014 

Part IV 

Department of Energy 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Furnace 

Fans; Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
500 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010] 

RIN 1904–AC21 

Energy Conservation Program: Test 

Procedures for Residential Furnace 

Fans 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 15, 2012, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to initiate the rulemaking to establish 

test procedures for residential furnace 

fans. On April 2, 2013 DOE issued a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR) to address 

interested party comments received on 

the NOPR. The proposed rulemaking 

serves as the basis for today’s action. 

DOE is issuing a final rule to establish 

test procedures for measuring the 

electrical consumption for electricallypowered devices used in weatherized 

and non-weatherized gas, oil and 

electric furnaces and modular blowers 

to circulate air through ductwork. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

February 3, 2014. 

The incorporation by reference of 

certain publications listed in this rule 

was approved by the Director of the 

Federal Register on February 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the regulations.gov index. However, 

some documents listed in the index, 

such as those containing information 

that is exempt from public disclosure, 

may not be publicly available. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/42. This Web 

page will contain a link to the docket for 

this notice on the regulations.gov site. 

The regulations.gov Web page will 

contain simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald Majette, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7935. Email: 

residential_furnace_fans@ee.doe.gov. 

Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email: 

Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule incorporates by reference into part 

430 the following industry standards: 

(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103– 

2007, (Supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE 103– 

1993), Methods of Testing for Annual 

Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 

Residential Central Furnaces and 

Boilers, ASHRAE Standards Committee 

approved on June 23, 2007, ASHRAE 

Board of Directors on June 27, 2007, 

ANSI approved March 25, 2008. 

(2) ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, Methods 

of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment, ASHRAE Standards 

Committee approved on June 20, 2009, 

ASHRAE Board of Directors approved 

on June 24, 2009; ANSI approved June 

25, 2009. 

You can purchase copies of ASHRAE 

standards from the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, Inc. 1791 Tullie 

Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 404– 

636–8400, or www.ashrae.org. 

You can also view copies of these 

standards at the U.S. Department of 

Energy, Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program, 950 L’Enfant 

Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope 

B. AMCA 210 

C. Airflow Equation 

D. Duct Specifications and External Static 

Pressure Measurement 

E. Temperature Measurement Accuracy 

Requirement 

F. Minimum Temperature Rise 

G. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria 

H. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature 

Gradients 

I. Sampling Plan Criteria 

J. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method (AEDM) 

K. FER Equation 

L. Air Leakage 

M. FER Metric 

N. FER Reporting 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

M. Congressional Notification 

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 

6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets 

forth a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. (All 

references to EPCA refer to the statute 

as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 

112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012)). Part B of title 

III, which for editorial reasons was 

redesignated as Part A upon 

incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified), 

establishes the ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.’’ These include 

products that use electricity for the 

purposes of circulating air through 

ductwork, hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘furnace fans,’’ the subject of today’s 

notice. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) 

Under the Act, this energy 

conservation program consists 

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

labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation 

standards; and (4) certification and 

enforcement procedures. The testing 

requirements consist of test procedures 

that manufacturers of covered products 

must use as the basis for certifying to 

DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA 

and for making representations about 

the efficiency of those products. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Any 

representation made after July 2, 2014 

for energy consumption of residential 

furnace fans must be based upon results 

generated under this test procedure. 

Upon the compliance date(s) of any 

energy conservation standard(s) for 

residential furnace fans, use of the 

applicable provisions of this test 

procedure to demonstrate compliance 

with the energy conservation standard 

will also be required. Similarly, DOE 

must use these test procedures in any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 501 

1Temperature rise in this context and for the 

purposes of this rule is the difference between the 

inlet and outlet air temperature. 

enforcement action to determine 

whether covered products comply with 

these energy conservation standards. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

General Test Procedure Rulemaking 

Process 

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

the criteria and procedures DOE must 

follow when prescribing or amending 

test procedures for covered products. 

Under EPCA, ‘‘[a]ny test procedures 

prescribed or amended under this 

section shall be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which measure 

energy efficiency, energy use, . . . or 

estimated annual operating cost of a 

covered product during a representative 

average use cycle or period of use . . . 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In 

addition, if DOE determines that a test 

procedure amendment is warranted, it 

must publish proposed test procedures 

and offer the public an opportunity to 

present oral and written comments on 

them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In any 

rulemaking to amend a test procedure, 

DOE must determine to what extent, if 

any, the proposed test procedure would 

alter the measured energy efficiency of 

a covered product as determined under 

the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 

6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure would alter the 

measured efficiency of a covered 

product, DOE must amend the 

applicable energy conservation standard 

accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2)) 

Energy Conservation Standards and 

Test Procedures for Furnace Fans 

Pursuant to EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(4)(D), DOE is currently 

conducting a rulemaking to consider 

new energy conservation standards for 

furnace fans. EPCA directs DOE to 

establish test procedures in conjunction 

with new energy conservation 

standards, including furnace fans. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) DOE does not 

currently have a test procedure for 

furnace fans. Hence, to fulfill the 

statutory requirements, DOE is 

conducting this test procedure 

rulemaking for furnace fans 

concurrently with the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

furnace fans. The test procedure 

established by this final rule includes an 

energy consumption metric and the 

methods necessary to measure the 

energy performance of furnace fans. The 

energy consumption metric does not 

account for the electrical energy 

consumption in standby mode and off 

mode because consumption of a furnace 

fan in those modes is already accounted 

for in the DOE rulemakings for furnaces 

and central air conditioners (CAC) and 

heat pumps. 77 FR 76831 (Dec. 31, 

2012); 76 FR 65616 (Oct. 24, 2011). 

Manufacturers will be required to use 

the energy consumption metric, 

sampling plans, and testing methods 

established in this final rule to verify 

compliance with the new energy 

conservation standards when they take 

effect and for making representations of 

the energy consumption of furnace fans. 

On June 3, 2010, DOE published a 

Notice of Public Meeting and 

Availability of the Framework 

Document (the June 2010 Framework 

Document) to initiate the energy 

conservation standard rulemaking for 

furnace fans. 75 FR 31323. In the June 

2010 Framework Document, DOE 

requested feedback from interested 

parties on many issues related to test 

methods for evaluating the electrical 

energy consumption of furnace fans. 

DOE held the framework public meeting 

on June 18, 2010. DOE originally 

scheduled the framework comment 

period to close on July 6, 2010. 

However, due to the large number and 

broad scope of questions and issues 

raised regarding the June 2010 

Framework Document in writing and 

during the public meeting, DOE 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register reopening the comment period 

from July 15, 2010, until July 27, 2010, 

to allow additional time for interested 

parties to submit comments. 75 FR 

41102 (July 15, 2010). 

On May 15, 2012, DOE published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking in the 

Federal Register to initiate the test 

procedure rulemaking for furnace fans. 

77 FR 28674. In the May 2012 NOPR, 

DOE proposed an energy consumption 

metric, fan efficiency rating (FER), and 

proposed methods to measure the 

performance of furnace fans based on 

FER. DOE held a public meeting on the 

test procedure NOPR on June 15, 2012. 

The test procedure NOPR comment 

period closed on September 10, 2012. 

In response to the May 2012 NOPR, 

many interested parties commented that 

the proposed test procedure was unduly 

burdensome. The Air-Conditioning, 

Heating and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI), with support from Goodman 

Global, Inc. (‘‘Goodman’’), Ingersoll 

Rand, Lennox International, Inc. 

(‘‘Lennox’’), and Morrison Products, Inc. 

(‘‘Morrison’’), proposed an alternative 

test method that these parties argue 

would result in accurate and repeatable 

FER values that are comparable to the 

FER values resulting from the test 

procedure proposed in the NOPR, but 

are obtained at a significantly reduced 

test burden. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, 

No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 5; 

Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) On April 2, 

2013, DOE published a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) 

in the Federal Register. A detailed 

discussion of AHRI’s proposed 

alternative method and interested 

parties’ comments regarding the burden 

of the test procedure proposed in the 

NOPR is provided in the SNOPR. 78 FR 

19612 (April 2, 2013) In the April 2013 

SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt a 

modified version of the test method 

presented by AHRI as the furnace fan 

test procedure. DOE agreed that the key 

concept embodied in the alternative 

method suggested by AHRI and 

manufacturers (using the AFUE test set 

up and temperature rise to determine 

airflow) may provide accurate and 

repeatable FER values at a significantly 

reduced burden to manufacturers.1 DOE 

also explained the changes reflected in 

the test procedure proposed in the 

SNOPR compared to the test procedure 

proposed in the NOPR. 78 FR 19606 

(Apr. 2, 2013) 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Pursuant to EPCA, this final rule 

establishes test procedures to enable 

DOE to develop energy conservation 

standards to address the electricity used 

for the purpose of circulating air 

through duct work. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(3)(A) and (f)(4)(D)) The test 

procedure established by this notice is 

applicable to circulation fans used in 

weatherized and non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, 

and modular blowers. The test 

procedure is not applicable to any nonducted products, such as whole-house 

ventilation systems without ductwork, 

central air-conditioning (CAC) 

condensing unit fans, room fans, and 

furnace draft inducer fans. 

DOE aligned the test procedure 

established by this final rule with the 

DOE test procedure for furnaces by 

incorporating by reference specific 

provisions from an industry standard 

that is also incorporated by reference in 

the DOE test procedure for furnaces. 

DOE’s test procedure for furnaces is 

codified in appendix N of subpart B of 

part 430 of the code of federal 

regulations (CFR). The DOE furnace test 

procedure incorporates by reference 

American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI)/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) 103–1993, Method 

of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
502 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2Mobile home external static pressure is much 

lower because there is no return air ductwork in 

mobile homes. Also, the United States Department 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

requirements for manufactured homes stipulate that 

the ductwork for cooling should be designed for 0.3 

in. wc. 24 CFR 3280.715. 

Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103– 

1993). This final rule incorporates by 

reference the definitions, test setup and 

equipment, and procedures for 

measuring steady-state combustion 

efficiency provisions of the 2007 version 

of ASHRAE 103 (ASHRAE 103–2007). 

In addition to these provisions, the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

includes provisions for apparatuses and 

procedures for measuring temperature 

rise, external static pressure, and 

furnace fan electrical input power. The 

test procedure established by this final 

rule also incorporates by reference 

provisions for measuring temperature 

and external static pressure from ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 37–2009, Methods of Testing 

for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary 

Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment (ASHRAE 37–2009). There 

are no differences between the 2005 

version (which is already incorporated 

by reference in the CFR) and the 2009 

version of the ASHRAE 37 provisions 

incorporated by reference for this final 

rule. This final rule also establishes 

calculations to derive the rating metric, 

fan energy rating (FER), for each furnace 

fan basic model based on the results of 

testing per the test method established 

by this notice. 

FER is the estimated annual electrical 

energy consumption of the furnace fan 

normalized by: (a) The estimated total 

number of annual fan operating hours 

(1,870); and (b) the airflow in the 

maximum airflow-control setting. For 

the purposes of the test procedure 

established by this final rule, the 

estimated annual electrical energy 

consumption is the sum of the furnace 

fan electrical input power (in Watts), 

measured separately for multiple 

airflow-control settings at different 

external static pressures (ESPs), 

multiplied by national average operating 

hours associated with each setting. 

These ESPs are determined by a 

reference system, based on operation at 

maximum airflow, that represents 

national average ductwork system 

characteristics. 

Table II.1 includes the reference 

system ESP values by installation type 

that are specified by the test procedure. 

In previous rulemaking documents for 

the furnace fan test procedure and 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking, DOE used the term 

‘‘manufactured home furnace’’ to be 

synonymous with ‘‘mobile home 

furnace’’, as defined in the Federal 

Register. 10 CFR 430.2. DOE will use 

the term ‘‘mobile home’’ hereinafter to 

be consistent with the Federal Register 

definition for ‘‘mobile home furnace.’’ 

All provisions and statements regarding 

mobile homes and mobile home 

furnaces are applicable to manufactured 

homes and manufactured home 

furnaces. 

TABLE II.1—REQUIRED REFERENCE

SYSTEM CRITERIA (I.E., ESP AT

MAXIMUM AIRFLOW) BY FURNACE

FAN INSTALLATION TYPE

Installation type 

ESP at 

maximum 

airflow 

(in. wc) 

Units with an internal evaporator coil ............................ 0.50 

Units designed to be paired 

with an evaporator coil ...... 0.65 

Units designed to be installed in a mobile home 2 0.30 

DOE recognizes that some furnace fan 

basic models may be marketed and 

designed to be installed in multiple 

installation types. For example, a nonweatherized, non-condensing gas 

furnace that can be installed in both 

mobile homes and non-mobile 

residences meets the definition for 

‘‘units designed to be paired with an 

evaporator coil’’ and ‘‘units designed to 

be installed in a mobile home.’’ In this 

final rule, DOE is specifying that a 

manufacturer must test, rate, and certify 

compliance of the basic model of 

furnace fan in all of the installation 

types for which it is marketed and 

designed. For example, the basic model 

of furnace fan that is used in a nonweatherized, non-condensing furnace, 

as described above, that is marketed and 

designed to be installed in both nonmobile home and mobile home 

residences will need to be tested and 

certified as both a non-weatherized, 

non-condensing gas furnace fan using 

the ‘‘units designed to be paired with an 

evaporator coil’’ reference system 

criteria and as a mobile home, nonweatherized, non-condensing gas 

furnace fan using the ‘‘units designed to 

be installed in a mobile home’’ reference 

system criteria. 

This test procedure requires 

measurements for the airflow-control 

settings that correspond to fan operation 

while performing the cooling function 

(which DOE finds is predominantly 

associated with the maximum airflowcontrol setting), heating function, and 

constant-circulation function. Table II.2 

describes the required airflow-control 

settings by product type. 

TABLE II.2—AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTINGS AT WHICH MEASUREMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH PRODUCT TYPE

Product type Airflow-control setting 1 Airflow-control setting 2 Airflow-control setting 3 

Single-stage Heating ..................... Default constant-circulation .......... Default heat .................................. Absolute maximum.* 

Multi-stage or Modulating Heating Default constant-circulation .......... Default low heat ............................ Absolute maximum. 

* For the purposes of the test procedure established by this notice, ‘‘absolute maximum’’ airflow-control setting refers to the airflow-control setting that achieves the maximum attainable airflow at operating conditions specified by this test procedure. 

As shown in Table II.2, for products 

with single-stage heating, the three 

airflow-control settings to be tested are: 

The default constant-circulation setting; 

the default heating setting; and the 

absolute maximum setting. For products 

with multi-stage heating or modulating 

heating, the airflow-control settings to 

be tested are: the default constantcirculation setting; the default low 

heating setting; and the absolute 

maximum setting. The absolute lowest 

airflow-control setting is used to 

represent constant circulation if a 

default constant-circulation setting is 

not specified. For this test procedure, 

DOE defines ‘‘default airflow-control 

settings’’ as the airflow-control settings 

for installed use specified by the 

manufacturer in the product literature 

shipped with the product in which the 

furnace fan is integrated. Manufacturers 

typically provide detailed instructions 

for setting the default heating airflowcontrol setting to ensure that the 

product in which the furnace fan is 

integrated operates safely. In instances 

where a manufacturer specifies multiple 

airflow-control settings for a given 

function to account for varying 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 503 

installation scenarios, the highest 

airflow-control setting specified for the 

given function shall be used for the DOE 

test procedure. High heat and reduced 

heat will be considered different 

functions for multi-stage heating units. 

Manufacturer installation guides also 

provide detailed instructions regarding 

compatible thermostats and how to wire 

them to achieve the specified default 

settings. 

The Watt measurements for 

calculating FER are weighted using 

designated annual operating hours for 

each function (i.e., cooling, heating, and 

constant circulation) that represent 

national average operation. Table II.3 

shows the estimated national average 

operating hours for each function. 

TABLE II.3—ESTIMATED NATIONAL AVERAGE OPERATING HOUR VALUES FOR CALCULATING FER 

Operating mode Variable Single-stage 

(hours) 

Multi-stage or modulating 

(hours) 

Heating .......................................................... HH ................................................................ 830 830/HCR. 

Cooling .......................................................... CH ................................................................ 640 640. 

Constant Circulation ..................................... CCH ............................................................. 400 400. 

For multi-stage heating or modulating 

heating products, the specified 

operating hours for the heating mode are 

divided by the heating capacity ratio 

(HCR) to account for variation in time 

spent in this mode associated with 

turndown of heating output. The HCR is 

the ratio of the measured reduced heat 

input rate to the measured maximum 

heat input rate. 

The FER equation is: 

III. Discussion 

A. Scope 

In the SNOPR, DOE addressed 

interested party comments on the NOPR 

regarding the scope of coverage. DOE 

proposed test procedures for circulation 

fans that are used in residential furnaces 

and modular blowers. 78 FR 19609 

(Apr. 2, 2013) 

AHRI and Morrison Products, Inc. 

believe that modular blowers should be 

excluded from the scope of the 

rulemaking because they are not 

currently a federally regulated product. 

They add that, if 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) 

were intended to cover modular 

blowers, then there would have been a 

corresponding change to the definition 

of furnace or the addition of this 

product class along with a direction to 

develop a corresponding test procedure. 

Additionally, the proposed test 

procedures in the SNOPR are 

insufficient for modular blowers and fail 

to account for the fact that some 

modular blowers in today’s marketplace 

are not even designed to operate with 

electric heat resistance kits. (AHRI, No. 

0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

2) Lennox International, Inc. agrees with 

DOE’s decision not to include fans used 

in other products, such as split-system 

central air-conditioning and heat pump 

air handlers or hydronic air handlers. 

(Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 1) Additionally, 

like AHRI, Lennox feels that DOE 

should not include modular blowers in 

the scope of coverage because the 

definition of modular blowers that is 

contained in the proposed regulation 

does not support the conclusion that 

modular blowers and electric furnaces 

are very similar in design. (Lennox, No. 

0031 at p. 2) Furthermore, modular 

blowers that are not electric furnaces do 

not currently require AFUE testing. 

Thus, the test procedure imposes the 

requirement to run AFUE tests on nonfurnaces, which adds additional burden 

to manufacturers as well as additional 

testing costs. (Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 2) 

Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. 

reiterated in comments that DOE’s 

interpretation of the scope in the 

SNOPR is too broad and in error. 

Goodman stated that furnace fan 

electrical power consumption in cooling 

mode should not be included in the 

scope of this rule because it is already 

accounted for by the SEER metric when 

the furnace fan is used with a splitsystem air conditioner or split-system 

heat pump. DOE stated in the SNOPR 

that EPCA does not impose a limitation 

on DOE’s authority to regulate fan 

electrical consumption for these 

products across all operating modes 

because, in this situation, two different 

products are being regulated, one the 

CAC or heat pump product, and one the 

separate furnace fan product, which 

may or may not be incorporated into a 

CAC or heat pump.’’ (78 FR at 19612) 

Goodman commented that DOE’s 

justification in the SNOPR for including 

furnace fan cooling mode operation 

ignores the fact that in 100% of 

applications where a furnace is operated 

in the cooling mode the furnace is 

matched with either a central airconditioner or heat pump product. 

(Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 4) 

On the other hand, the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) and 

Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPPC) strongly disagrees with 

DOE’s proposal to exclude hydronic and 

split system air conditioning and heat 

pump air handlers from the proposed 

scope. NPPC/NEEA commented that 

DOE noted in the SNOPR that ‘‘The 

NOPR test procedure’s proposed scope 

of applicability included single phase, 

electrically-powered devices that 

circulate air through ductwork in HVAC 

systems with heating input capacities 

less than 225,000 Btu per hour, cooling 

capacities less than 65,000 Btu per hour, 

and airflow capacities less than 3,000 

cfm.’’ NPPC/NEEA finds this scope to be 

perfectly acceptable and appropriate, 

and suggests that there is nothing in this 

language that would exclude hydronic 

or central air conditioning and heat 

pump air handlers. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 

0039 at pg. 2) Additionally, NPPC and 

NEEA note that sold separately, the air 

handlers used for central air 

conditioning and heat pump systems are 

virtually indistinguishable from a 

modular blower, as DOE defines the 

latter. NPPC and NEEA argue that they 

are the same thing, particularly since 

DOE plans to include modular blowers 

that can be sold with electric resistance 

heating kits. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at 

pg. 3) Furthermore, NPCC/NEEA state 

that hydronic air handlers can be 

properly referred to as ‘‘furnaces’’, thus, 

the need to specify a different test 

procedure for them, other than the one 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.001</GPH>
504 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed for gas- or oil-fired furnaces, is 

not a valid reason for excluding them 

from coverage in this rulemaking. 

(NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 3) 

Like NPCC/NEEA, the American Gas 

Association (AGA) supports DOE 

including furnace fans used in other 

products, such as split-system central 

air-conditioning and heat pump air 

handlers, through-the-wall air handlers, 

as well as other types of air handlers, 

but understands that DOE is not 

addressing these products in this 

rulemaking but will do so in future 

rulemakings. (AGA, No. 0040 at pg. 1) 

The California Investor Owned Utilities 

(CA IOUs) also believe DOE should 

include furnace fans that are part of 

blower-coil and single-packaged central 

air-conditioners and heat pumps within 

the scope of the standards rulemaking 

because the SEER and HSPF do not 

adequately capture fan energy use. 

Additionally, CA IOUs encourage DOE 

to keep hydronic air-handlers within the 

scope, and to develop a test procedure 

for this product class. (CA IOUs, No. 

0032 at p. 1) 

As discussed in the SNOPR, DOE 

noted that, although the title of this 

statutory section refers to ‘‘furnaces and 

boilers,’’ the applicable provision at 42 

U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) was written using 

notably broader language than the other 

provisions within the same section. 78 

FR 19606, 19611. Specifically, the 

applicable statutory provision directs 

DOE to ‘‘consider and prescribe energy 

conservation standards or energy use 

standards for electricity used for 

purposes of circulating air through duct 

work.’’ Such language could be 

interpreted as encompassing 

electrically-powered devices used in 

any residential HVAC product to 

circulate air through duct work, not just 

furnaces, and DOE has received 

numerous comments on both sides of 

this issue. At the present time, however, 

DOE is only establishing test procedures 

for those circulation fans that are used 

in residential furnaces and modular 

blowers (see discussion below). As a 

result, DOE is not addressing public 

comments that pertain to fans in other 

types of HVAC products. The following 

list describes the furnace fans that DOE 

is addressing in this rulemaking and 

those that DOE is not addressing in this 

rulemaking. 

• Products addressed in this 

rulemaking: furnace fans used in 

weatherized and non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, 

and modular blowers. 

• Products not addressed in this 

rulemaking: furnace fans used in other 

products, such as split-system CAC and 

heat pump blower-coil units, throughthe-wall blower-coil units, small-duct, 

high-velocity (SDHV) blower-coil units, 

energy recovery ventilators (ERVs), heat 

recovery ventilators (HRVs), draft 

inducer fans, exhaust fans, or hydronic 

blower-coil units. 

The test procedure established by this 

notice is applicable to modular blowers. 

All modular blower models of which 

DOE is aware can be operated in 

conjunction with an electric resistance 

heat kit. DOE expects that the number 

of modular blowers that are not 

designed to operate with an electric 

resistance heat kit is de minimis. 

Consequently, DOE is including 

modular blowers in the scope of 

coverage of the test procedure 

established by this final rule. 

Manufacturers that produce modular 

blowers that cannot be operated in 

conjunction with an electric resistance 

heat kit will likely have to apply for a 

waiver from the test procedure. Waiver 

applications could include a proposed 

alternative test method that includes 

provisions for generating measureable 

heat in the airflow of the product that 

can be used to calculate airflow per the 

specified airflow equations. DOE 

recognizes that testing products that 

meet the definition of furnace fan, but 

were previously not subject to DOE’s 

regulatory provisions, requires an 

investment of time and resources, as 

Lennox suggests. However, DOE 

interprets EPCA to require consideration 

of standards for modular blowers, and 

DOE does not find the time and 

resources required to test modular 

blowers according to the test procedure 

established by this final rule to be 

unduly burdensome. 

After considering available 

information and public comments 

regarding exclusion of fan operation in 

cooling mode, DOE maintains that the 

test procedure established by this rule 

account for the electrical consumption 

of furnace fans while performing all 

active mode functions (i.e., heating, 

cooling, and constant circulation). DOE 

recognizes that furnace fans are used not 

just for circulating air through duct 

work during heating operation, but also 

for circulating air during cooling and 

constant-circulation operation. DOE 

anticipates that higher airflow-control 

settings are factory-set for cooling 

operation. Therefore, DOE expects that 

the electrical energy consumption of a 

furnace fan is generally higher while 

performing the cooling function. 

Additionally, the design of the fan as 

well as its typical operating 

characteristics (i.e., ESP levels during 

operation in different modes) is directly 

related to the performance requirements 

in cooling mode. DOE is also concerned 

that excluding some functions from 

consideration in rating furnace fan 

performance would incentivize 

manufacturers to design fans that are 

optimized to perform efficiently at the 

selected rating airflow-control settings 

but that are not efficient over the broad 

range of field operating conditions. In 

DOE’s view, in order to obtain a 

complete assessment of overall 

performance and a metric that reflects 

the product’s electrical energy 

consumption during a representative 

average use cycle, the metric must 

account for electrical consumption in a 

set of airflow-control settings that spans 

all active mode functions. This ensures 

a more accurate accounting of the 

benefits of improved furnace fans. 

B. Standby and Off Mode 

EPCA, as amended by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–140 (EISA), requires 

that any final rule for a new or amended 

energy conservation standard adopted 

after July 1, 2010, must address standby 

mode and off mode energy use pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(3)) In the NOPR and SNOPR, 

DOE explained that DOE has already 

fully incorporated standby mode and off 

mode energy use in the test procedures 

(or proposed test procedures) for all of 

the products to which the test procedure 

established by this notice is applicable. 

77 FR 28688 (May 15, 2012) and 78 FR 

19619 (April 2, 2013). summarizes the 

test procedure rulemaking vehicles 

through which DOE addresses standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

for the products covered by this 

rulemaking. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 505 

3 ‘‘Efficiency Characteristics and Opportunities 

for New California Homes’’ can be found at http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500- 

2012-062/CEC-500-2012-062.pdf. 

TABLE III.1—RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES ADDRESSING FURNACE FAN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

HVAC products DOE rulemaking DOE rulemaking activity 

• Gas Furnaces ..............................

• Oil-fired Furnaces ........................

• Electric Furnaces .........................

Residential Furnaces ..................... • Docket: EERE–2013–BT–TP–0008. 

• Most Recent Notice: September 13, 2011 

NOPR (76 FR 56339). 

• Modular Blowers ..........................

• Weatherized Gas Furnace ..........

Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps.• Docket: EERE–2009–BT–TP–0004. 

• Most Recent Notice: October 24, 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 65616). 

There is no need for DOE to adopt 

additional test procedure provisions for 

standby and off mode energy use in the 

test procedure established by this 

rulemaking. DOE maintains its position 

that the standby mode and off mode 

energy use associated with furnace fans 

used in products covered by this 

rulemaking would be measured by the 

established or proposed test procedures 

associated with these products. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

include circulation fans used in 

hydronic air handlers in the scope of 

applicability of the test procedure. 

There are no current DOE test 

procedures for measurement of 

electrical energy use in hydronic air 

handlers, nor is there an ongoing 

rulemaking to establish such test 

procedures. Consequently, DOE also 

proposed in the NOPR to integrate the 

standby mode and off mode electrical 

energy consumption measurements with 

the active mode metric for hydronic air 

handlers, resulting in an integrated FER 

(IFER). DOE received a number of 

comments in response to the NOPR 

regarding the IFER metric. In the 

SNOPR, DOE proposed to exclude 

circulation fans used in hydronic air 

handlers from the scope of coverage of 

the test procedure. As discussed in 

section III.A above, the test procedure 

established by this final rule excludes 

circulation fans used in hydronic air 

handlers. 

C. AMCA 210 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed a test 

procedure based on the provisions 

specified in the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air 

Movement and Control Association 

International, Inc. (AMCA) 210–07 | 

ANSI/American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) 51–07, Laboratory 

Methods of Testing Fans for Certified 

Aerodynamic Performance Rating 

(AMCA 210). 77 FR 28674 (May 15, 

2012) Many interested parties 

commented on the NOPR that AMCA 

210 is not an appropriate reference 

standard for rating furnace fan 

performance. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, 

No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed a test 

procedure that would not adopt 

provisions from AMCA 210. 

Consequently, DOE did not address 

comments received from interested 

parties on the NOPR regarding AMCA 

210 in the SNOPR. Likewise, the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

does not include provisions from AMCA 

210. Therefore, DOE is not addressing 

comments received from interested 

parties on the NOPR regarding AMCA 

210 in this notice. 

D. Reference System 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

specify a single reference system per 

product installation type that would be 

characterized by an ESP value 

representing national average operating 

conditions of a residential duct system 

for a furnace fan operating in the 

maximum airflow-control setting. 77 FR 

28683 (May 15, 2012) In the SNOPR 

notice, DOE did not address interested 

parties’ comments received in response 

to the NOPR regarding its proposed 

reference system requirements. DOE did 

not alter its proposed reference system 

requirements in the SNOPR. Hence, 

interested party comments regarding 

this topic are summarized and 

addressed below. 

Many interested parties commented 

that the reference system ESP values 

should be lower than those proposed in 

the NOPR. Rheem stated that a single 

furnace ESP specification at 0.65 in. wc. 

has not been shown to represent a 

national average duct system, and 

ratings should not be based on poor ESP 

field conditions where installers ignore 

manufacturers’ installation instructions. 

(Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 3) AHRI stated 

that the proposed reference system in 

the NOPR specifies external static 

pressures that are too high as compared 

to the external static pressures in the 

federal test procedure for furnaces. 

(AHRI, No. 0023 at pg. 15) Goodman 

echoed AHRI’s comments, stating that 

they are concerned that FER is based on 

elevated external static pressures and 

ignores the fact there are a significant 

number of applications with lower 

values. (Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 2) 

Goodman added that using elevated 

static pressure values will only condone 

higher/increased energy consumption, 

poor ductwork design and application. 

(Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 5) Goodman 

stated that a survey of its products 

indicated that watt/cfm is roughly 15% 

lower at 0.2 in. wc. and 25% lower at 

0.4 in. wc. than at the DOE-proposed 

0.65 in. wc., suggesting there should be 

incentive to operate at lower statics to 

reduce energy. (Goodman, No. 0017 at 

pg. 6) Morrison stated that by 

accounting for ESPs that are reported to 

be fully representative of field 

conditions in the NOPR, DOE is 

advocating scenarios that do not comply 

with the instructions in manufacturers’ 

installation manuals. (Morrison, No. 

0021 at pg. 6) Unico, Inc. stated that 

field pressure measurements are known 

to be notoriously inaccurate and 

extremely challenging to collect. (Unico 

No. 0023 at pg. 94) 

Some interested parties recommended 

that DOE re-evaluate and increase its 

proposed reference system ESP 

requirements. NPCC/NEEA commented 

that DOE’s data for manufactured home 

ESP values, which come primarily from 

the Northwest, may not be 

representative of the national average 

ESP for manufactured home products 

because of a long history of energy 

efficiency programs for those products 

in that region. NPCC/NEEA 

recommends that DOE collect additional 

data on field ESP from other regions of 

the country before settling on ESP 

values. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0022 at pg. 6) 

CA IOU recommended that DOE 

increase the proposed test ESP based on 

a recent study for the California Energy 

Commission 3 for which the resulting 

average furnace fan cooling mode ESP 

was 0.85 in. wc. (CA IOU, No. 0020 at 

pg. 4) The Wisconsin Department of 

Administration, Division of Energy 

Services (WI–DOA) stated the reference 

system ESP should be over 0.55 inches. 

The WI–DOA provided field 

measurements for 39 furnace 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
506 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

4 DOE has included a list of citations for these 

studies in the docket for this rulemaking. The 

ADDRESSES section of this notice provides a link 

and instructions for accessing the docket. . . . The 

docket number for this rulemaking is EERE–2010– 

BT–TP–0010. 

installations throughout Wisconsin that 

had ESP values between 0.32 in. wc. 

and 1.33 in wc. (WI–DOA, No. 0007 at 

pg. 1) 

In a joint comment from ASAP, 

ACEEE, NRDC, and the National 

Consumer Law Center (NCLC), 

hereinafter referred to as ACEEE, et al., 

efficiency advocates strongly support 

DOE’s proposal to characterize a 

reference system at external static 

pressures that mimic field conditions. 

(ACEEE, et al., No. 0013 at pg. 3) NEEA 

stated that the range of external static 

pressures presented by DOE is 

reasonable based on measured data. 

(NEEA, No. 0023 at pg. 167) United 

Technologies (UTC) also agrees with the 

reference ESP values selected by DOE, 

but recommends that the reference ESPs 

should be no higher. (UTC, No. 0010 at 

pg. 2) 

The test procedure established by this 

final rule specifies the reference system 

ESP values proposed in the NOPR, 

which DOE did not modify in the 

SNOPR. DOE finds that these ESP 

values are consistent with known field 

conditions. For the NOPR, DOE 

gathered field data from available 

studies and research reports to 

determine an appropriate ESP value to 

propose for the reference system for 

each installation type. DOE compiled 

over 1300 field ESP measurements from 

several studies that included furnace 

fans in single-family and mobile homes 

in different regions of the country as 

part of that effort.4 DOE was not able to 

acquire nor did DOE receive from 

interested parties additional data 

sources for mobile home ESP values on 

which to base a revision of its previous 

analysis. However, DOE feels confident 

in its estimated national average 

reference system ESP value for these 

products because the field conditions 

underlying the values are prescribed by 

HUD, as explained in footnote Error! 

Bookmark not defined. in section II. 

DOE reviewed the CEC study referred to 

by the CA–IOU and the field 

measurements provided by WI–DOA. 

The range and average of the ESP data 

provided in the CEC study and WI– 

DOA’s measurements are consistent 

with the rest of the data DOE collected. 

DOE therefore concludes that this new 

data supports the reference system ESP 

levels proposed in the SNOPR and 

adopted in this final rule (which is 

above 0.55 in. wc. as WI–DOA 

recommends for the product installation 

types included in its study). 

DOE expects specifying ESP values 

that are representative of field 

conditions will result in ratings that are 

most representative of field energy use. 

DOE also expects that the use of 

manufacturer-recommended ESPs might 

underestimate furnace fan energy 

consumption, because the ESP of fieldinstalled HVAC systems typically 

exceeds the ESP recommended by 

manufacturers. Like manufacturers, 

DOE is also concerned about the energy 

use impact of installations with high 

static pressures. However, DOE does not 

expect that a reduction in average field 

ESPs that approaches the manufacturerrecommended levels is likely to occur, 

because installing new, larger, and 

more-efficient ducts in existing homes is 

generally cost-prohibitive. DOE, like the 

manufacturers, would prefer that 

homeowners modify the ductwork to 

reduce energy use, but DOE has no 

authority to require larger ducts in this 

rulemaking. DOE is concerned that a 

metric based on a low, albeit desirable, 

static pressure level would not 

accurately represent actual furnace fan 

energy consumption. Also, DOE is 

concerned that a metric based on a low 

static pressure may lead to excessive 

energy use by furnace fan designs which 

do not achieve high efficiency levels 

when operating at the higher, field static 

pressures. Adapting the efficiency 

metric to the field conditions better 

facilitates meaningful comparisons of 

furnace fans operating under these 

conditions. 

Interested parties commented on 

DOE’s proposed approach to specify 

using the maximum airflow-control 

setting to characterize the required 

reference system. Goodman believes 

that because of the large variability of 

airflow rate provided by most furnaces, 

the use of a maximum value could 

potentially mislead the consumer to 

purchase a product to be applied at less 

than maximum airflow rate that has a 

better rating at maximum than another 

product, even though the other product 

may have lower energy consumption for 

a lower airflow rate. (Goodman, No. 

0017 at pg. 4) National Resources 

Canada (NRCan) commented that the 

NOPR correctly noted that it is not clear 

from the reports of installed static 

pressures for residential furnaces if the 

measurements were taken with furnace 

control settings configured to provide 

their maximum air flow when operating 

in cooling mode. In the absence of clear 

evidence that field measurements of 

ESP in cooling mode were actually 

made with the furnaces adjusted to their 

highest air flow settings, it is not 

possible to link field measured ESPs in 

cooling mode to the maximum air 

delivery capabilities of the furnace fans. 

NRCan adds that establishing the 

reference system ESP using the 

maximum air flow for which a furnace 

is capable of operating in cooling mode 

biases the test and ratings for all other 

modes towards lower static pressures 

(which may be lower than field ESP 

levels for those operating modes). 

NRCan suggests that one approach that 

DOE might consider for specification of 

the reference system would be to use 

furnace fan control settings that produce 

an air flow suitable for a cooling system 

with a capacity that matches the 

national average cooling system (using a 

default design air flow rate of say 400 

cfm per ton of cooling capacity) in place 

of using the maximum air flow setting 

and an unspecified cooling capacity. 

(NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 2) Conversely, 

UTC agrees with DOE’s use of a 

reference ESP that is based on the 

highest airflow control setting for the 

fan efficiency rating procedure. (UTC, 

No. 0010 at pg. 2) 

DOE acknowledges the concerns of 

Goodman and NRCan regarding the 

impact that requiring measurements in 

the maximum airflow-control setting 

has on FER and, in turn, on 

manufacturer design and consumer 

purchasing decisions. However, FER is 

primarily intended for evaluating the 

national average performance of furnace 

fans. To best fulfill this intent, FER 

estimates national average annual 

energy use. Manufacturers have the 

option of providing a full account of fan 

performance in addition to FER in 

product literature to inform consumers. 

DOE expects that FER will enable 

consumers to evaluate relative 

performance across the entire range of 

expected field operation because FER is 

determined based on measurements of 

furnace fan electrical input power for 

multiple airflow-control settings at 

different external static pressures that 

span the entire range of expected 

operation. As a result, FER includes and 

reflects the reduced energy 

consumption of a product that performs 

more efficiently at less than maximum 

airflow compared to a product that 

performs more efficiently at maximum 

airflow, as in Goodman’s example. DOE 

disagrees with NRCan that 

manufacturers are likely to design 

products with higher maximum airflowcontrol settings to achieve better FER 

ratings, because FER includes electrical 

input power consumption in that 

setting, which increases as the airflow 

in that setting increases. In turn, FER 

may also increase. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 507 

DOE recognizes NRCan’s concern that 

DOE assumes that the ESP field 

measurement data DOE gathered are 

linked to the maximum airflow-control 

setting. However, the reports from 

which DOE gathered ESP field data 

specified that the ESP measurements 

were taken in cooling airflow-control 

settings. As NRCan and other interested 

parties have confirmed, furnace fans 

typically operate in the highest of 

available airflow-control settings for 

cooling. As mentioned above, DOE did 

not find or receive from interested 

parties any additional information upon 

which to re-evaluate its assumption that 

field ESP data collected in cooling 

airflow-control settings is representative 

of field ESP in maximum airflowcontrol settings. 

DOE also recognizes that specifying 

the reference system in the maximum 

airflow-control setting may result in 

FER measurements taken in lower 

airflow-control settings at ESP levels 

that are lower than if a default cooling 

airflow-control setting were specified 

for the reference system (as suggested by 

NRCan). However, DOE expects that 

specifying the reference system in an 

airflow-control setting based on national 

average cooling capacity according to 

NRCan’s suggestion will not address the 

issues that NRCan raises with the 

approach outlined by DOE. The NRCan 

approach will result in airflow-control 

selections that deviate from the settings 

ultimately selected at installation if the 

product is not installed to deliver 

national average cooling capacity, 

resulting in similar biases. In addition, 

some products that are designed for 

cooling capacities much higher or much 

lower than the national average may not 

have airflow-control settings that meet 

NRCan’s national average criteria. 

Specifying the reference system in the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

more appropriate than the alternative 

approach presented by NRCan for these 

reasons. Accordingly, the test procedure 

established by this notice specifies the 

reference system in the maximum 

airflow-control setting. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define 

ESP to mean the difference between the 

fan total pressure at the air outlet and 

the total pressure at the air inlet less 

velocity pressure at the air outlet, which 

is consistent with the AMCA 210 

definition for ESP. In response to the 

NOPR, Unico and Goodman stated that 

they support the ASHRAE 37 definition 

and measurement specifications for 

external static pressure. ASHRAE 37 

defines external static pressure as static 

pressure measured at the outlet less the 

static pressure measured at the inlet (or 

ambient if a return air duct is not used). 

(Unico, No. 0023 at pg. 40; Goodman, 

No. 0017 at pg. 6) UTC recommended 

that DOE use the following definition 

for ESP: ‘‘The difference between the 

system inlet and outlet static pressures 

measured in the attached ducting. In 

laboratory testing, the inlet may be nonducted such that the inlet static pressure 

is zero’’. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 4) AMCA 

stated that ‘‘fan static pressure’’ is not 

the static pressure rise through the fan. 

According to AMCA, the ‘‘Fan static 

pressure’’ is the static pressure rise 

minus the inlet velocity pressure. 

(AMCA, No. 0019 at pg. 2) Conversely, 

NRCan had no issues with the definition 

of ESP as proposed in the NOPR. 

(NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 6; NPCC/NEEA, 

No. 0022 at pg. 6) 

The test procedure established by this 

final rule adopts the ASHRAE 37 

definition of external static pressure as 

suggested by Unico and Goodman. The 

definition that UTC recommends is also 

consistent with the ASHRAE 37 

methods for measuring ESP. 

Interested parties also commented on 

using a single-reference system method 

for representing average residential 

ducting systems versus a multiplereference system. UTC agreed with the 

fan efficiency rating method proposed 

in the NOPR using a single-reference 

system method. (UTC No. 0010 at pg. 2) 

Rheem prefers a single reference system 

which is consistent with the furnace 

rating plate and manufacturer’s 

installation instructions, but agreed to 

the multi-reference system in CSA 823 

as a compromise to avoid establishment 

of a rating based on an unsafe and faulty 

installation condition. (Rheem, No. 0025 

at pg. 8) NPCC/NEEA find the CSA 

multi-reference system approach and 

manufacturer-recommended installation 

ESP values to be inconsistent with field 

data and a single set of ESP conditions 

should be specified. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 

0022 at pg. 6) Ingersoll Rand supports 

only one reference system stating that a 

multi-reference system would not add 

enough value to warrant double testing. 

(Ingersoll Rand, No. 0014 at pg. 4) 

Morrison stated that it is better to have 

two static pressure levels rather than a 

single high static pressure level to help 

consumers and others distinguish 

between good and bad practice in the 

field. (Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 171) 

Unico recommended a single reference 

system method because performance 

data based on multiple reference 

systems will not improve the quality of 

decision making on the part of the 

contractor or consumer. (Unico, No. 

0015 at pg. 5) NRCan stated that DOE’s 

assumption that default heating airflow 

is within 80 to 90 percent of maximum 

airflow for a given product undermines 

its conclusion that using multiple 

reference systems is not justified. 

NRCan provided example furnaces for 

which the heating airflow was between 

35 and 88 percent of maximum airlfow. 

(NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 3) 

The test procedure established by this 

notice specifies one reference system 

curve for each installation type because 

DOE cannot set standards based on 

multiple metrics. Requiring 

measurements for a second reference 

system would also increase test burden. 

For the NOPR, DOE investigated the use 

of a combined metric based on multiple 

reference system curves. DOE found that 

the combined, multiple reference 

system FER values varied on average by 

less than 2 percent with a standard 

deviation of 2 percent compared to the 

proposed, single reference system FER 

and did not alter the ranking of furnace 

fans by FER. 77 FR 28686 (May 15, 

2012) In response to the furnace fan 

framework document, Rheem suggested 

criteria for a two reference system 

approach: one reference system at 0.3 

in. wc. and another at 0.6 in. wc both 

in the default heating setting. These 

reference system criteria are equivalent 

to those specified in CSA Standard 

C823–11, Performance of Air Handlers 

in Residential Space Conditioning 

Systems. DOE chose to use different 

criteria that comprised higher ESP 

values and in the maximum airflowcontrol setting for its NOPR evaluation 

of using multiple reference systems. In 

the NOPR, DOE stated that the reference 

system criteria it selected for its 

investigation is approximately 

equivalent to those suggested by Rheem 

for products for which the heating 

airflow is within 80 to 90 percent of 

maximum airflow. DOE recognizes 

NRCan’s concern that a furnace fan’s 

heating airflow is not always within 80 

to 90 percent of maximum airflow. DOE 

presented this information to explain 

how its selected criteria for evaluating a 

multiple reference system approach 

compared to Rheem’s recommended 

criteria, not as a justification for 

proposing to specify a single reference 

system. 

In addition, the test method proposed 

by DOE in the NOPR would require 

measuring fan performance at enough 

operating points within each available 

airflow-control setting to derive 

performance curves. These curves 

would allow for calculating fan 

performance at any operating point in 

any given airflow-control setting, which 

would enable the use of multiple 

reference systems without requiring 

additional measurements. In the 

SNOPR, DOE modified its proposed test 

method to reduce burden. DOE’s 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
508 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed SNOPR test procedure would 

only require fan performance to be 

measured only at operating points 

consistent with the specified reference 

system. Requiring measurements for a 

second reference system would increase 

the burden of the test method DOE 

proposed in the SNOPR because 

additional measurements would be 

necessary. For these reasons, the test 

procedure established by this notice 

does not require multiple reference 

systems. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

require measurements at three specific 

ESP values without any tolerances. 77 

FR 28700 (May 15, 2012) Allied Air 

stated that because systems can become 

unstable when measuring airflow in the 

high or low end of the static pressure 

range, tolerances should be allowed. 

(Allied Air, No. 0023 at pg. 184) 

Additionally, UTC recommended that a 

minimum tolerance of +/¥0.05 be 

allowed for the three ESPs to allow for 

slight variations in the measurement 

equipment. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 4) 

DOE’s test experience confirms Allied 

Air’s and UTC’s concerns that specific 

ESP values are difficult to achieve and 

maintain when measuring airflow. The 

test procedure established by this notice 

specifies that products maintain an ESP 

level between the minimum reference 

system value and 0.05 in. wc. above that 

minimum value throughout the 

stabilization period and at the time that 

measurements for the maximum 

airflow-control setting are taken to allow 

for slight variations. 

E. Airflow Equation 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

require measurement of airflow directly 

using the pressure drop across nozzles 

according to the procedures in AMCA 

210. Interested parties commented on 

the NOPR that this method would be 

overly burdensome. AHRI, with the 

support of a number of manufacturers, 

proposed a method of calculating 

airflow based on temperature rise, 

which would significantly reduce test 

burden because it can be measured 

using procedures and a test setup 

consistent with those used for the DOE 

test procedure for furnaces (AHRI, No. 

16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; 

Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, 

No. 21 at p. 3). Specifically, AHRI 

proposed the following equation for 

calculating airflow (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 

23): 

Where: 

Q = airflow, in cubic feet per minute (CFM), 

AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency, as 

determined by the DOE furnace test 

procedure, 

QIN = fuel energy maximum nameplate input 

rate at steady-state operation (including 

any pilot light input), in British Thermal 

Units per hour (Btu/h), 

1.08 = Conversion from airflow and 

temperature rise to heating rate, and 

DT = measured temperature rise. 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to use 

a modified version of AHRI’s proposed 

equation to calculate airflow. The 

numerator of AHRI’s proposed airflow 

equation estimates the amount of heat 

energy produced by the furnace as the 

nameplate annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (AFUE) multiplied by the 

nameplate fuel energy input rate (QIN). 

DOE proposed to estimate heat energy 

differently because nameplate AFUE 

and QIN are determined based on 

measurements taken at the ESP levels 

required by the DOE furnace test 

procedure (i.e. specified in ASHRAE 

103–1993), which are significantly 

lower than those proposed in the 

SNOPR of this rule. Specifically, DOE 

proposed to estimate heat energy as 

steady-state efficiency (EffySS) less 

percent jacket losses quantity multiplied 

by QIN all measured at the operating 

conditions proposed in the SNOPR. 

DOE also proposed to add a term to the 

numerator to account for the recoverable 

heat from the fan. DOE expects that its 

estimate of heat energy improves the 

accuracy of the equation. DOE proposed 

the following equation for calculating 

airflow in the SNOPR. 78 FR 19615 

(April 2, 2013) 

Where: 

Q = airflow in CFM, 

EffySS = steady-state efficiency in % as 

determined according to ASHRAE 103– 

2007 at the specified operating 

conditions, 

LJ = jacket loss in % as determined according 

to ASHRAE 103–2007 at specified 

operating conditions, 

QIN = measured fuel energy input in Btu/h at 

specified operating conditions based on 

the fuel’s high heating value determined 

as required in section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3 

of ASHRAE 103–2007, 

3413 = conversion of kW to Btu/h; 

EHeat = electrical energy to the furnace fan 

motor in kW that is recovered as useable 

heat, 

1.08 = conversion from airflow and 

temperature rise to heating rate, and 

DT = temperature rise measured at specified 

operating conditions. 

AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, and Morrison 

are concerned that the test procedures 

specified within the SNOPR would 

require that a manufacturer test the 

steady-state efficiency and jacket losses 

of a furnace at a new and higher 

external static pressure operating point, 

causing an undue increase in testing 

burden. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; 

Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 

0035 at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

3) AHRI and Morrison stated that the 

FER metric is comprised of two distinct 

furnace operation descriptors—the first 

is calculated from electrical energy 

measurements at three separate test 

conditions and the second is airflow at 

a single test condition. AHRI, Rheem, 

and Morrison believe that the airflow 

component of the FER metric is 

secondary in importance and is meant 

to simply provide a frame of reference. 

They believe that some of DOE’s 

proposed modifications to AHRI’s 

proposed test procedure would increase 

the testing burden on the industry while 

adding little or no benefit, and strongly 

urge that DOE not require furnace 

manufacturers to measure an additional 

steady-state efficiency to calculate the 

FER metric because it would impose an 

additional testing burden. (AHRI, No. 

0034 at pg. 1; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 

1; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 1) Ingersoll 

Rand stated that if the furnace is 

running within the allowable rise range, 

the AFUE can be used in place of the 

steady-state efficiency and jacket loss in 

the calculation procedure. (Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 1) AHRI and 

Morrison believe that using nominal 

values associated with AFUE (which 

also accounts for jacket losses) and QIN

to calculate airflow is a conservative 

approach and will eventually lead to 

conservative FER values. Additionally, 

using AFUE and QIN reduces the testing 

burden on manufacturers, as compared 

to measuring steady-state combustion 

efficiency and determining jacket losses, 

which could take up to two additional 

hours for every basic model. (AHRI, No. 

0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

2) Lennox and Rheem, on the other 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.002</GPH> ER03JA14.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 509 

hand, agree with DOE that using the 

steady-state combustion efficiency and 

the measured fuel energy input would 

provide more accurate air flow 

calculations, as opposed to using AFUE 

and nominal fuel energy input. (Lennox, 

No. 0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 

2) Goodman strongly suggests DOE 

consider allowing an alternate method 

of directly measuring airflow using a 

code tester and ASHRAE 37 ductwork (a 

method typically used by manufacturers 

for airflow data published in technical 

product literature). (Goodman, No. 0037 

at pg. 1) 

DOE is aware that manufacturers will 

be required to test products that include 

furnace fans that have already been 

tested to comply with other DOE 

rulemaking requirements (e.g., the 

residential furnace energy conservation 

standard). However, EPCA requires DOE 

to consider standards for furnace fans, 

and DOE does not find the time and 

resources required to test furnace fans 

according to the test procedure 

established by this final rule to be 

unduly burdensome. 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that the SNOPR proposal to measure 

steady-state efficiency (EffySS), jacket 

loss (LJ), and fuel energy input (QIN) 

instead of using nameplate values of 

AFUE and QIN to calculate airflow 

would result in increased accuracy, but 

would require additional testing time. In 

the SNOPR, DOE stated that EffySS

could range from 0 to 6 percentage 

points higher than AFUE. More recent 

DOE tests resulted in EffySS values that 

ranged from 0 to 4 percentage points 

higher than AFUE, confirming DOE’s 

previous estimates. DOE agrees with 

manufacturers’ estimates that 

approximately 2 hours of additional 

testing time would be required if 

measured values for EffySS, LJ and QIN

are used to calculate heat energy instead 

of nameplate AFUE and QIN. Through 

testing, DOE finds that as much as 1.5 

hours of this additional testing time will 

be needed for set up of the jacket loss 

test. The flue or stack gas temperature 

and carbon dioxide concentration 

measurements needed to measure 

steady-state efficiency require less than 

10 minutes in DOE’s experience. For 

condensing furnaces, the test procedure 

proposed in the SNOR would require 30 

additional minutes to collect condensate 

to measure steady-state efficiency. DOE 

disagrees with AHRI, Rheem, and 

Morrison that the airflow calculation is 

secondary in importance and that 

accuracy should be compromised. 

However, DOE agrees that time to test 

should be minimized while maximizing 

accuracy. The test procedure established 

by this final rule requires that the 

airflow used in the FER equation be 

calculated based on measured values of 

steady-state efficiency and fuel input 

energy. However, like the DOE test 

procedure for furnaces, the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

allows manufacturers the option of 

measuring jacket loss or using a default 

value of 1 percent. In recent DOE tests, 

jacket loss measurements ranged from 

0.1 to 0.9 percent, with an average of 0.5 

percent and a standard deviation of 0.2 

percent. Consequently, the difference 

between measured LJ and the default 

value can be expected to be less than 1 

percent. Manufacturers that opt to use 

the default jacket loss value of 1 percent 

will avoid a significant majority of the 

additional testing time required to 

calculate airflow, but the expected 

deviation from measured values is 

reduced to less than 1 percent with this 

approach. DOE considers this an 

acceptable range of accuracy to reduce 

test burden. 

DOE also recognizes that using a code 

tester and ASHRAE 37 ductwork, as 

Goodman suggests, could be an 

alternative test method that provides 

similar results to the test procedure 

established by this final rule. However, 

a test procedure based on this approach 

would differ significantly from the test 

procedure established in this notice. An 

auxiliary fan at the outlet of the airflow 

chamber may be required to achieve the 

external static pressures specified by 

this rule. This method of varying 

external static pressure is not consistent 

with the method specified by this final 

rule, which requires that the same duct 

restrictions be maintained throughout 

the test after initial reference system 

conditions are met. In addition, a test 

setup that includes a code tester is not 

typical when currently testing a furnace 

and would add substantial burden. 

Instead, DOE tried to harmonize, where 

possible, the test set up for furnaces and 

furnace fans. These differences could 

have significant impacts on the 

consistency of using a code tester in lieu 

of the setup and methods specified in 

this rule. Consequently, DOE is not 

adopting an alternative method of using 

a code tester to measure airflow for this 

rule. 

AHRI and Lennox stated that the 

assumption that the cooling airflow rate 

can be calculated using the measured 

temperature rise in the heating mode is 

not substantiated in the SNOPR. AHRI 

recommended that the furnace is fired at 

the maximum airflow rate to calculate 

QMax. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, 

No. 0031 at p. 3) Additionally, Rheem 

and Morrison stated that the QMax value 

is representative and that the method 

proposed by AHRI based on firing the 

furnace at the maximum airflow is 

sufficiently accurate. (Rheem, No. 0035 

at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3) 

NPCC/NEEA stated that for multi-stage 

systems, three modes of test are not 

enough to properly characterize how the 

system will be used in the field. (NPCC/ 

NEEA, No. 0022 at pg. 5) 

DOE disagrees with AHRI, Rheem, 

Lennox, and Morrison that firing the 

furnace in the maximum airflow-control 

setting is always sufficiently accurate. 

As stated previously, DOE finds that the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

most often designated for cooling. Firing 

the burner in the maximum airflowcontrol setting in these instances would 

not be representative of field use. Also, 

DOE finds that firing the furnace in a 

maximum airflow-control setting that is 

designated only for cooling is not 

always achievable by third-party testing 

facilities by interfacing with the product 

controls. DOE’s airflow adjustment 

approach is a necessity in these cases. 

For these reasons, the test procedure 

established in this final rule includes 

provisions for both product variations: 

products for which the maximum 

airflow-control setting is designated for 

heating, and products for which the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

designated only for cooling. The 

provisions for products for which the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

designated for heating are provided in 

section III.M. The provisions for 

products for which the maximum 

airflow-control setting is designated 

only for cooling are as proposed in the 

SNOPR. 78 FR 19627 (April 2, 2013) In 

short, the maximum airflow is 

determined by calculating the airflow 

according to the equation above for a 

heating setting and adjusted to the 

maximum (cooling) setting based on 

pressure measurements. 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

calculate airflow based on the 

temperature rise in the default heat 

setting for single-stage products and the 

default low heat setting for multi-stage 

products. DOE requested comment from 

interested parties in the SNOPR on 

whether a more accurate calculation of 

airflow could be achieved based on 

temperature rise measured in the 

maximum heat setting for multi-stage 

furnaces because temperature rises in 

the maximum heat setting would be 

higher. 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, and 

Goodman disagree with DOE’s assertion 

that operating a multi-stage furnace at 

the maximum heat setting results in a 

higher temperature rise. They went on 

to state that there are instances where 

the temperature rise at a reduced heat 

setting is higher than the temperature 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
510 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

rise at the maximum heat setting. 

(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Rheem, No. 

0035 at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

3; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) 

DOE’s review of product literature 

confirms comments from AHRI, Rheem, 

Morrison and Goodman that the 

maximum heat setting does not always 

result in higher temperature rise. 

Consequently, the test procedure 

established in this final rule adopts the 

provisions proposed in the SNOPR, 

which require firing at the reduced heat 

input and associated airflow-control 

setting to calculate airflow. 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

calculate airflow based on temperature 

rise using the equation presented in this 

section above. DOE’s proposed equation 

included a constant of 1.08 for 

converting temperature rise and heating 

rate to airflow. This constant assumes 

that air has a constant density of 0.075 

pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3). In the 

SNOPR, DOE requested comments from 

interested parties on whether the 1.08 

constant should be adjusted by 

barometric pressure because air density 

changes with pressure (often due to 

elevation changes and varying weather 

conditions). 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, and 

Goodman agree with DOE that higher 

elevations would have an impact on 

temperature rise and calculated airflow. 

They believe that the maximum test 

elevation should be 2,000 feet and 

recommend that furnace fans should not 

be tested above 2,000 feet without an 

appropriate adjustment to the test 

conditions and calculations. (AHRI, No. 

0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; 

Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 4; Morrison, No. 

0036 at pg. 3; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 

2) AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, 

Goodman, and Ingersoll Rand suggest 

that DOE consider the use of a 1.08 

conversion factor that is adjusted by 

barometric pressure at test conditions. 

(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 

0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 3; 

Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3; Goodman, 

No. 0037 at pg. 1; Ingersoll Rand, No. 

0038 at pg. 2) 

DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, 

Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, and 

Ingersoll Rand that the 1.08 conversion 

factor should be adjusted by barometric 

pressure at test conditions. The test 

procedure established by this final rule 

includes provisions for measuring the 

humidity ratio and dry bulb temperature 

of the test room near the inlet to 

determine the specific volume of test 

room air in cubic feet per pound of dry 

air to calculate airflow. As a result, the 

1.08 conversion factor is no longer a 

constant. Instead the constant is a 

function of the specific volume of test 

room air in cubic feet per pound of dry 

air at test conditions. Consequently, the 

airflow calculation specified by the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

is: 

Where: 

Q = airflow in CFM, 

EffySS = steady-state efficiency in % as 

determined according to ASHRAE 103– 

2007 at the specified operating 

conditions, 

LJ = jacket loss in % as determined according 

to ASHRAE 103–2007 at specified 

operating conditions or a default value of 

1%, 

QIN = measured fuel energy input in Btu/h at 

specified operating conditions based on 

the fuel’s high heating value determined 

as required in section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3 

of ASHRAE 103–2007, 

3413 = conversion of kW to Btu/h; 

Emotor = electrical energy to the furnace fan 

motor in the settings for which airflow 

is being calculated in kW that is 

recovered as useable heat, 

60 = conversion from hours to minutes, 

0.24 = specific heat capacity of dry air in Btu/ 

lb°F, 

0.44 = specific heat capacity of water vapor 

in Btu/lb°F, 

W = humidity ratio in pounds water vapor 

per pounds dry air, 

vair = specific volume of dry air at specified 

operating conditions per the equations in 

the psychrometric chapter in 2001 

ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals in 

lb/ft3

DT = temperature rise measured at specified 

operating conditions. 

Test room air properties are required to 

be measured near the inlet of the 

product under test to minimize the 

impacts of test room humidity and 

temperature gradients. For electric 

furnaces and modular blowers, EffySS

equals 100, and QIN is the measured 

electrical input power to the submetered electric resistance heat kit 

multiplied by 3,413 kW per Btu/h. 

F. Duct Specifications and External 

Static Pressure Measurement 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to use 

the methods specified in AMCA 210 for 

rating fans. The proposal called for 

evaluation of the fan performance at the 

flows and ESPs associated with a 

reference system curve by (1) measuring 

performance at multiple conditions at 

each airflow-control setting, (2) 

developing equations to represent the 

airflow and power input of the fan as a 

quadratic function of ESP, (3) 

mathematically determining the ESP 

associated with the reference system 

curve for the tested airflow-control 

setting using the airflow equation, and 

(4) calculating power input using the 

developed power input equation. 

Interested parties commented on the 

NOPR that the AMCA 210 method 

would be unduly burdensome and that 

an acceptable alternative would be to 

maintain the same duct restrictions 

throughout the test after initial reference 

system conditions are met in lieu of the 

previously proposed methods of making 

multiple determinations in each airflowcontrol setting and curve-fitting to 

identify operating points. Because the 

AMCA 210 method requires use of a 

supplemental test facility fan to achieve 

the desired flow and ESP conditions, 

this method is not amenable to moving 

to all of the target flow conditions on 

the reference system curve simply by 

changing the speed of the furnace fan 

under test. In contrast, the test approach 

suggested by AHRI and other 

stakeholders and adopted in the SNOPR 

is amenable to this simplified approach. 

DOE proposed in the SNOPR to adopt 

the alternative method suggested by 

interested parties and to use the 

provisions in ASHRAE 103–2007 for 

achieving the specified ESP levels in the 

maximum airflow-control setting by 

‘‘symmetrically restricting the outlet 

duct’’. DOE requested comments from 

interested parties whether this language 

was sufficiently instructive or if more 

details are necessary (such as which 

materials and procedures to use to 

restrict the duct). 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 

2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and 

Goodman all agree that DOE should not 

specify the methods for restricting the 

outlet duct. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; 

Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; Morrison, No. 

0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 

2) AHRI and Morrison stated that a 

symmetrical duct restriction is needed 

in order to achieve repeatable results, 

but the manufacturer should be allowed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 511 

to determine the type of material that 

would lead to symmetrical restrictions 

on the outlet duct. (AHRI, No. 0034 at 

pg. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 4) 

Rheem also stated that a specific duct 

restriction is needed to assure 

repeatable test results, and further 

explained that they have adopted the 

method of ‘‘symmetrically restricting 

the outlet of the test duct.’’ (Rheem, No. 

0035 at pg. 4) 

DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, 

Morrison, and Goodman that the 

proposed requirement to symmetrically 

restrict the outlet of the test duct to 

achieve the specified ESP is sufficient. 

The test procedure established by this 

final rule includes this provision. 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow 

manufacturers the option of rating their 

products with or without a return air 

duct. 78 FR 19616 (April 2, 2013) AHRI, 

Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman all 

agree with DOE’s proposal to allow for 

the optional use of a return air duct. 

(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 

0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) 

Furthermore, Goodman added that if a 

return air duct is used, then DOE should 

specify that the return air pressure tap 

should be downstream of any bends or 

turns in the return air duct. (Goodman, 

No. 0037 at pg. 2) Rheem stated that it 

follows the duct and plenum 

arrangements shown in Figure 2 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, in which the 

downflow configuration requires an 

inlet duct and the upflow and 

horizontal configurations do not require 

an inlet duct. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 

4) Ingersoll Rand proposed that inlet 

ducts should be allowed on an optional 

basis as detailed in ASHRAE 103–2007 

with pressure taps 12 inches from the 

furnace inlet. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 

at pg. 2) 

DOE agrees with manufacturers that 

the test procedure established by this 

final rule should allow for the optional 

use of a return air duct. The test 

procedure includes this provision. The 

test procedure also specifies that 

pressure taps be placed on all four sides 

of the duct, 12 inches from the inlet, 

and downstream of any bends or turns 

in the return air duct. 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt 

the provisions in ASHRAE 37 for 

measuring external static pressure that 

specify duct geometry and pressure tap 

placement. 78 FR 19616 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI and Lennox agree that the DOE 

test procedures should provide a 

detailed specification and a diagram for 

measuring the external static pressure. 

However, using the provisions in ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 37 may require a 

duct that is too tall for the ceiling height 

of a laboratory that is used for testing 

furnaces. Additionally, in Figure 7a in 

ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2005, the tap 

location dimension from the furnace 

outlet is two times the square root of the 

duct width times the duct depth, which 

would put the tap into the 90 degree 

bend of the duct and cause inaccurate 

static pressure measurements. (AHRI, 

No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at 

p. 4). AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, and 

Goodman added that DOE should 

specify the four tap arrangement in 

AHSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 with the 

specification that the pressure taps be 

placed 18 inches from the furnace 

outlet. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Rheem, 

No. 0035 at pg. 5; Morrison, No. 0036 

at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2). 

Furthermore, Rheem stated that the 

proposed DOE requirement would no 

longer allow Rheem to make test 

measurements for AFUE and FER on the 

same test stand. A horizontal test set up 

would be required for FER 

measurement. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 

5) Ingersoll Rand proposed that the fan 

test method specify ASHRAE 103–2007 

ducts with static pressure taps on all 

four sides located 12 inches from 

furnace outlet. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 

at pg. 2) 

Through recent testing experience, 

DOE confirms AHRI’s, Lennox’s, and 

Rheem’s comments that the ASHRAE 

37duct requirements, in some cases, can 

be incompatible with the ASHRAE 103– 

2007 setup, and that for larger products, 

ducts that meet the ASHRAE 37 

requirements are too large for typical 

furnace testing facilities. Consequently, 

the test procedure established by this 

final rule adopts the provisions 

suggested by AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, 

and Goodman which require ducting 

dimensions to meet ASHRAE 103 setup 

requirements with a pressure tap on 

each of the four faces of the outlet duct, 

18 inches from the outlet, and upstream 

of any bends or turns in the duct. 

G. Temperature Measurement Accuracy 

Requirement 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

require temperature measurement errors 

no greater than +/¥0.5 degrees 

Fahrenheit. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and 

Goodman do not believe that a 

requirement to have temperature 

measurement errors no greater than 

+/¥0.5 degrees Fahrenheit is reasonably 

achievable. AHRI, Morrison, and 

Goodman recommend that DOE specify 

an error of +/¥0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, 

per the special limits of error of T-type 

thermocouples. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 

4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, 

No. 0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 

at pg. 3) Rheem stated that an allowable 

temperature measurement error would 

be +/¥1 degree Fahrenheit, while 

Ingersoll Rand stated that the ASHRAE 

103–2007 accuracy level should be 

maintained (i.e., ±2 degrees Fahrenheit). 

(Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 5; Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) 

DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, 

Morrison, and Goodman that an 

allowable temperature measurement 

error of ±0.5 °F is not reasonable for 

thermocouples, which are the 

temperature measurement instruments 

typically used in ASHRAE 103. 

However, DOE finds that T-type 

thermocouples can meet tighter 

tolerances than the allowable error of ±2 

°F specified in ASHRAE 103. The test 

procedure established by this final rule 

specifies an allowable error of ±0.75 °F, 

which is consistent with the special 

limit of error for T-type thermocouples 

specified in ASHRAE 41.1 and 

referenced in ASHRAE 37. 

Consequently, manufacturers will be 

able to continue using thermocouples 

while errors in temperature 

measurements will be minimized. 

H. Minimum Temperature Rise 

In the SNOPR, DOE requested 

comment on whether a minimum 

temperature rise of 18 °F should be 

required. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and 

Goodman all believe that a minimum 

temperature rise is not required, but 

agree that a minimum temperature rise 

of 18 degrees Fahrenheit is reasonable. 

(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 

0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3) Rheem 

stated that a minimum temperature rise 

of 18 degrees Fahrenheit could 

eliminate some furnaces with single 

speed blower motors from the 

marketplace. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 5) 

DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, 

Morrison, and Goodman that a 

minimum temperature rise of 18 °F is 

reasonable. In addition, DOE expects 

that a significant majority of products 

are able to meet this minimum 

requirement. The test procedure 

established by this final rule includes a 

minimum temperature rise requirement 

of 18 °F. Any manufacturer of products 

that cannot meet this requirement can 

apply for a test procedure waiver. 

Waivers could include alternative test 

methods that ensure a higher level of 

temperature measurement accuracy in 

lieu of the minimum temperature rise 

requirement. 

I. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt 

the following steady-state stabilization 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
512 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

criteria. For testing furnace fans used in 

gas and oil furnaces, DOE proposed that 

steady-state conditions are attained as 

indicated by a temperature variation in 

three successive readings, taken 15 

minutes apart, of not more than: 

• 1.5 °F in the stack gas temperature 

for furnaces equipped with draft 

diverters; 

• 2.5 °F in the stack gas temperature 

for furnaces equipped with either draft 

hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent 

systems; and 

• 0.5 °F in the flue gas temperature 

for condensing furnaces. 

For electric furnaces, DOE proposed that 

steady-state conditions are reached as 

indicated by a temperature variation of 

not more than 1 °F in the outlet 

temperature in four successive 

temperature readings taken 15 minutes 

apart. The proposed criteria for all 

product types are more stringent than 

the criteria specified in ASHRAE 103– 

2007, which are incorporated by 

reference in the DOE test procedure for 

furnaces. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, Goodman, 

and Ingersoll Rand all believe that the 

steady-state stabilization criteria 

proposed by DOE are not reasonably 

achievable and will increase testing 

burden on manufacturers without 

significantly improving the accuracy of 

the results. Furthermore, they suggest 

that the current residential furnace 

stabilization criteria in 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix N are stringent 

enough for accuracy and repeatability 

purposes. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; 

Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 

0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 

3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) 

Additionally, AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, 

and Morrison stated that a process that 

involved three temperature readings 

taken 15 minutes apart, instead of four, 

is more than adequate for electric 

furnaces and cold flow tests. (AHRI, No. 

0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; 

Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 6; Morrison, No. 

0036 at pg. 5) 

Recent DOE test results confirm 

AHRI’s, Lennox’s, Morrison’s, 

Goodman’s, and Ingersoll Rand’s 

comments that the steady-state 

stabilization criteria proposed in the 

SNOPR are not reasonably achievable. 

Therefore, the test procedure 

established by this final rule adopts the 

steady-state stabilization criteria in 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (which are identical 

to those codified in 10 CFR Part 430, 

Subpart B, Appendix N as part of the 

DOE furnaces test procedure) for the 

parts of the test that involve firing a 

furnace burner or energizing electric 

heat resistance elements. For the parts 

of the test that do not require firing a 

burner or energizing electric heat 

resistance elements (i.e., cold flow 

tests), DOE likewise found that the 

steady-state stabilization criteria 

proposed in the SNOPR, which are 

based on outlet temperature variation, 

are not reasonably achievable. Outlet 

temperature is sensitive to changes in 

ambient temperature, which is highly 

variable in ASHRAE 103–2007 

compliant test facilities. To address this 

issue, the test procedure established by 

this final rule specifies steady-state 

conditions for cold-flow tests based on 

the difference in temperature between 

the outlet airflow temperature and the 

ambient temperature. During testing, 

DOE collected over 30 minutes per test 

of time series inlet, outlet, and ambient 

temperature data for over 10 cold-flow 

tests. DOE observed a maximum 

difference in temperature between the 

outlet airflow and ambient of 2.7 °F. 

DOE believes this is a reasonable 

threshold for determining steady-state 

conditions for cold-flow tests. The test 

procedure established by this final rule 

specifies that steady-state conditions for 

cold-flow tests are indicated by a 

temperature rise variation in three 

successive readings, taken 15 minutes 

apart, of not more than 3 °F to address 

this issue. 

J. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature 

Gradients 

In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to 

specify the use of a mixer, as depicted 

in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37, which 

references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 

41.1–1986 (RA 2001), to minimize outlet 

flow temperature gradients if the 

temperature difference between any two 

thermocouples of the outlet air 

temperature grid is greater than 1.5 °F. 

78 FR 19617 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, 

Goodman, and Ingersoll Rand are all 

opposed to using a mixer due to their 

effect on external static pressure. They 

also stated that mixers are never found 

in the field. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; 

Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 

0035 at pg. 6; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 

5; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) Furthermore, 

AHRI and Morrison believe that the air 

temperature can be adequately 

measured by the thermocouple 

arrangements that are specified in 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–1993. 

(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Morrison, No. 

0036 at pg. 5) 

DOE recognizes interested party 

concerns that using an air mixer is 

inconsistent with the current DOE 

residential furnaces test set up. 

Consequently, the ESP of the test setup 

with an air mixer installed may be 

higher than the ESP at which furnace 

manufacturers typically test to comply 

with the DOE test procedure for 

residential furnaces. DOE is not aware 

of any negative impacts on the results of 

the DOE test procedure for residential 

furnaces of gradients in the outlet air 

temperature. The test procedure 

established by this final rule does not 

require the use of an air mixer for these 

reasons. In addition, the outlet 

temperature used to calculate airflow, 

and ultimately FER, is the average of the 

outlet temperature measurements of the 

thermocouples in the outlet 

thermocouple grid required by this test 

procedure. 

K. Certification Testing 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed that the 

existing sampling plans used for 

furnaces be adopted and applied to 

measures of energy consumption for 

furnace fans. 77 FR at 28691 (May 15, 

2012). AHRI and a number of 

manufacturers commented that the 

furnace sampling plan is too stringent 

for furnace fans and that DOE should 

use sampling plan criteria consistent 

with the DOE test procedure for 

residential central air conditioners 

(CAC). (Allied Air, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 225; Goodman, 

No. 17 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 25 at p. 11; 

Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, 

No. 12 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 8.) 

UTC explained that the CAC sampling 

plan requirements are more appropriate 

because the components of the furnace 

fan (i.e. electric motors, blower wheels 

and blower housings) are more 

analogous to an air conditioner or 

refrigerator than to the combustion 

process of a fuel-fired furnace. (UTC, 

No. 10 at p. 4.) DOE agreed with 

interested parties that the furnace fan 

electrical input power measurements 

and external static pressure 

measurements that would be required 

by the test procedure proposed in the 

SNOPR are different and inherently 

more variable than the measurements 

required for AFUE. Consequently, DOE 

proposed in the SNOPR to adopt a 

sampling plan that requires any 

represented value of FER to be greater 

than or equal to the higher of: the mean 

of the sample or the upper 90 percent 

(one-tailed) confidence limit divided by 

1.05, as specified in the sampling plan 

for CAC products. 78 FR 19718 (April 2, 

2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, 

Goodman, Ingersoll Rand, and NPCC/ 

NEEA agree with DOE’s proposal to 

adopt a sampling plan that requires any 

represented value of FER to be greater 

than or equal to the higher of the mean 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 513 

of the sample or the upper 90 percent 

(one-tailed) confidence limit divided by 

1.05. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Lennox, 

No. 0031 at p. 5; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 

7; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5; 

Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 3; NPCC/NEEA, 

No. 0039 at pg. 5) 

DOE’s testing experience confirms 

that the furnace fan electrical input 

power measurements and external static 

pressure measurements that are required 

by the test procedure established by this 

rule are more variable than the 

measurements required for AFUE. 

Consequently, as was proposed in the 

SNOPR, the test procedure established 

by this final rule adopts a sampling plan 

that requires any represented value of 

FER to be greater than or equal to the 

higher of the mean of the sample or the 

upper 90 percent (one-tailed) 

confidence limit divided by 1.05, as 

specified in the sampling plan for CAC 

products. 78 FR 19718 (April 2, 2013) 

NPCC/NEEA and CA IOU urge DOE to 

require manufacturers to certify 

individual mode FERs. (CA IOU, No. 

0032 at p. 3) NPCC/NEEA claims there 

is no additional testing burden 

associated with this proposal, even 

though they recognize some 

manufacturer reluctance to certify 

multiple values. NPCC/NEEA believes 

the importance and value of the 

transparency afforded by certifying the 

individual mode values far outweighs 

any concerns the manufacturers might 

have with regard to certifying the 

components of a single FER rating 

metric. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 5) 

WI–DOA stated that furnace 

manufacturers should be required to 

provide fan tables for airflow and 

corresponding watts with static pressure 

up to 1.20 in. wc. (WI–DOA, No. 0007 

at pg. 1) DOE is not adopting 

certification requirements for furnace 

fans in this rulemaking. DOE proposed 

in the furnace fan standards rulemaking 

that manufacturers be required to certify 

the single FER rating metric, along with 

some intermediary values that provide 

DOE details about the values used when 

the manufacturer conducted its own 

testing. DOE will consider these 

comments on certification requirements 

for furnace fans along with any others 

submitted in response to the proposal in 

the standards rulemaking. Should 

commenters have additional details 

about why individual mode values are 

important and would be useful to 

consumers, they may provide additional 

comments to the standards docket 

(Docket Number: EERE–2010–BT–STD– 

0011). 

AHRI, Morrison, and Ingersoll Rand 

added that the sampling plan for the 

DOE enforcement testing of residential 

furnaces employs a statistic that is based 

on a 95 percent two-tailed probability 

level with degrees of freedom (n1¥1), 

where n1 is the total number of tests. 

AHRI, Morrison, Goodman, and 

Ingersoll Rand believe that DOE must 

ensure that the confidence limits with 

respect to the certification and 

enforcement testing of the FER metric 

are the same. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; 

Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5; Goodman, 

No. 0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 

0038 at pg. 3) The sampling plan for 

certification testing utilizes a one-sided 

confidence limit, which ensures that the 

rating used by manufacturers is 

supported by the test data they 

conducted on a given basic model and 

allows the manufacturers the option to 

conservatively rate if they desire. DOE 

uses a one-sided confidence limit in 

determination of ratings because it is 

interested in ensuring consumers get a 

level of performance for a given basic 

model that is at least as good as what 

is being represented by manufacturers. 

In other words, DOE is primarily 

concerned with preventing overrating. 

On the other hand, the Department 

employs a two-sided sampling plan for 

enforcement testing with a 95-percent 

probability limit for all high-volume 

covered products and equipment 

because it is interested in the variability 

of all units within the sample when 

considering compliance against the 

standard. DOE is looking at the 

distribution of values within the sample 

as compared to the Federal standard. 

While DOE is open to further 

investigating whether the sampling 

plans for enforcement testing should be 

changed, specifically whether DOE 

should move to a one-sided probability 

limit for assessing compliance with 

standards, DOE is declining to do so in 

this rulemaking. DOE is accepting data 

which attempts to characterize the 

variability, both the testing and 

manufacturing, of furnace fan basic 

models. 

L. Alternative Efficiency Determination 

Method (AEDM) 

AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, 

and Lennox believe the option of 

employing an alternative efficiency 

determination method to determine FER 

must be made available instead of 

mandating that a minimum of two 

samples be tested in order to achieve 

DOE certification. (AHRI, No. 0034 at 

pg. 2; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 2; 

Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2; Goodman, 

No. 0037 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0012 at 

pg. 5) In response to the NOPR, Mortex 

Products, Inc. commented that it is 

concerned about the testing burden and 

cost for small manufacturers, and 

requested that DOE prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for the rulemaking 

that would relax the testing burden or 

combine testing requirements with an 

AEDM so that all models need not be 

tested. (Mortex, No. 0018 at pg. 3) 

Morrison, Unico, and AHRI echoed 

Mortex’s comments, requesting DOE 

provide the option of employing an 

AEDM. (Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 8; 

Unico, No. 0015 at pg. 6; AHRI, No. 

0016 at pg. 9) 

At this time, DOE is not adopting 

provisions that allow for the ratings of 

furnace fans to be established based on 

simulations or computer models. DOE 

currently does not allow the use of 

AEDMs for residential products, with 

the exception of central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. DOE believes that the 

number of furnace fan basic models that 

a manufacturer will need to test and 

certify will be significantly smaller than 

the number of combinations of splitsystem air conditioners and heat pumps 

that are currently allowed to be rated 

with an alternative rating method. 

While DOE is not opposed to 

considering AEDMs for furnace fans in 

the future, it is declining to do so in this 

rulemaking until manufacturers provide 

DOE with evidence that alternative 

rating methods are needed. DOE 

recognizes Mortex’s concerns regarding 

differential impacts on small 

manufacturers. DOE conducted a 

regulatory flexibility analysis as part of 

the NOPR of the furnace fans energy 

conservation standards rulemaking to 

assess impacts on small manufacturers, 

as Mortex requested. 78 FR 64132– 

64134 (October 25, 2013). Further, DOE 

adopted burden reducing measures to 

the test procedure during the 

rulemaking in response to 

manufacturers’ comments (e.g., DOE 

aligned the test procedure established 

by this final rule with the DOE test 

procedure for furnaces). Even in the 

absence of the ability to rate furnace 

fans with AEDMs, only basic models of 

furnace fans are required to be tested 

and rated in accordance with the test 

procedure established by this final rule. 

Manufacturers may group individual 

furnace fan models into a basic model 

if they have essentially identical 

physical, functional, and electrical 

characteristics and are represented by 

the same FER. For example, only one 

model of a series of electric furnace fan 

models that only differ by electric 

resistance heat capacity is required to be 

tested in accordance with the test 

procedure established by this rule, if the 

capacity variation does not include 

design changes that alter furnace fan 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
514 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5The airflow adjustment equation can be found 

in the regulatory text of this notice and the furnace 

fan test procedure SNOPR published on April 2, 

2013. 78 FR. 

performance as measured by the test 

procedure established by this rule. 

M. FER Modifications and Alternatives 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

require measurements in the absolute 

maximum airflow-control setting, which 

DOE found is most often designated for 

cooling. DOE also proposed to specify 

that the reference system ESP be set in 

the maximum airflow-control setting to 

avoid rating performance above the 

proposed reference system ESP values. 

77 FR 28683 (May 15, 2012). Interested 

parties commented on the NOPR that 

the maximum airflow-control setting is 

not always designated for cooling. In the 

SNOPR, DOE did not change the 

airflow-control settings in which it 

proposed to require measurements nor 

its proposal to set the reference system 

ESP in the maximum airflow-control 

setting. 78 FR 19608 (April 2, 2013) 

Interested parties stated that the 

maximum airflow-control setting is not 

always designated for cooling. Goodman 

disagrees with DOE’s comment that the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

often designated for cooling operation. 

They stated that a single furnace 

capacity (e.g. 60,000 Btu/h) is often 

offered with more than one air moving 

option (‘‘drive’’), and the heating speed 

tap will vary depending upon the drive 

provided. A 60,000 Btu/h furnace for 

northern applications may have a 3-ton 

drive with ‘‘high’’ speed tap for heating, 

while a 60,000 Btu/h furnace for 

southern applications may have a 4-ton 

drive with ‘‘medium’’ speed tap for 

heating. (Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) 

Rheem added that the assumption that 

the cooling speed will be the highest 

speed is a worst case assumption. 

(Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 5) During the 

NOPR public meeting and in written 

comments, Ingersoll Rand noted that if 

the maximum airflow speed is 

multiplied by cooling hours and the 

heating speed is higher than the cooling 

speed, then the FER equation is 

incorrect. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0023 at 

pg. 124) Ingersoll Rand proposed that 

when a furnace’s highest air flow setting 

is used for heating, that the test 

procedure and calculations allow QMax

to equal QHeat and allow the cooling 

speed energy to be determined at 

maximum cooling speed tap as specified 

in the installation and operating 

instructions. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 

at pg. 2) Ingersoll Rand stated that many 

furnaces will run appropriately with the 

blower set to the maximum speed 

setting. They proposed that for those 

units the airflow, QMax be determined 

directly from testing at the maximum 

airflow setting. Ingersoll Rand went on 

to state that the DOE proposed method 

of testing at the heating speed to 

determine QHeat and using a multiplier 

to calculate QMax should be an optional 

method for furnaces that cannot be 

operated or run appropriately at the 

maximum airflow setting. (Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) Rheem added 

that the assumption that the heating 

speed can be determined by an assumed 

system curve must be adjusted by the 

safety requirement that the furnace 

operate within prescribed temperature 

rise range that is listed on each rating 

plate. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 5) 

UTC agreed with DOE that the 

maximum airflow-control setting on a 

furnace is typically referred to as the 

cooling speed. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 1) 

DOE understands that, in some cases, 

the maximum airflow-control setting is 

designated for heating, not cooling. 

Even though DOE finds that the 

maximum airflow-control setting is 

most often designated for cooling, the 

test procedure established by this final 

rule specifies that measurements be 

taken in the absolute maximum airflowcontrol setting, not the default cooling 

airflow-control setting to accommodate 

both scenarios as Ingersoll Rand 

recommends. Specifying that 

measurements be taken in the maximum 

airflow-control setting ensures that the 

full range of fan operation is accounted 

for in the FER metric regardless of 

whether the maximum airflow-control 

setting is designated for heating or 

cooling. The test procedure established 

in this final rule has specific provisions 

for units for which the maximum 

airflow-control setting is a heating 

setting. For such units, the test 

procedure established by this notice 

specifies that: 

• The burner or electric resistance 

heat elements of the HVAC product in 

which the furnace fan is integrated shall 

be firing/energized while setting the 

initial conditions (i.e., achieving steadystate at the specified reference system 

ESP in the maximum airflow-control 

setting). 

• airflow for the maximum airflowcontrol setting shall be calculated using 

temperature rise measured in the 

maximum airflow-control setting (as 

Ingersoll Rand suggests) because the 

HVAC product will be producing heat. 

Consequently, calculating airflow based 

on temperature rise in an intermediate 

airflow-control setting that is designated 

for heating and using the airflow 

adjustment equation 5 to determine 

maximum airflow (as is specified for 

products for which the maximum 

airflow-control setting is only a cooling 

setting) is unnecessary. This approach 

avoids the uncertainty inherent in using 

the airflow adjustment equation. 

• EMax shall be measured while the 

HVAC product is producing heat in the 

maximum airflow-control setting and 

steady-state conditions have been met. 

For single-stage units, EMax and EHeat are 

equivalent because the maximum 

airflow-control setting and the heating 

airflow-control setting in which 

measurements are specified to be made 

are the same. Consequently, the same 

value is used for both variables in the 

FER equation. For multi-stage units, 

EMax and EHeat are not equivalent 

because the maximum airflow-control 

setting and the heating airflow-control 

setting (the default low heat airflow 

control setting) in which measurements 

are specified to be made are not the 

same. EHeat is required to be measured 

in the reduced heat airflow-control 

setting. 

Contrary to Ingersoll Rand’s 

recommendation, the test procedure 

established by this final rule does not 

require firing in the maximum airflowcontrol setting if that setting is not 

designated for heating (even if it is 

possible to do so). Instead, the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

requires firing in the default heating 

airflow-control setting. Requiring firing 

in the maximum airflow-control setting 

in addition would result in increased 

testing burden. Also contrary to 

Ingersoll Rand’s recommendation, the 

test procedure established by this final 

rule does not allow fan energy for 

cooling to be determined at an 

intermediate airflow-control setting (i.e., 

the highest airflow-control setting 

designated for cooling as specified in 

the installation and operating 

instructions that is not the absolute 

maximum airflow-control setting). DOE 

finds that manufacturers are not as 

limited in the setting they designate for 

cooling as they are by safety concerns 

and design constraints for designating 

heating settings. Consequently, 

manufacturers could designate the 

lowest airflow-control setting for 

cooling to produce favorable FER 

values, resulting in a potential loophole 

in the test method. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to 

incorporate the HCR to adjust the 

heating operating hours in both the 

numerator (i.e. estimated annual energy 

consumption) and denominator (i.e. 

normalization factor of total operating 

hours times airflow in the maximum 

airflow-control setting) of the FER 

equation. 77 FR at 28701 (May 15, 

2012). In the SNOPR, DOE revised its 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 515 

proposed FER equation by proposing to 

incorporate HCR in the numerator, and 

eliminate it from the denominator. DOE 

proposed this revision after finding that 

this modification results in FER values 

that more accurately reflect the relative 

estimated annual energy consumption 

of multi-stage and modulating units 

compared to single-stage units. 78 FR 

19609 (April 2, 2013) 

AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, and Morrison 

oppose DOE’s proposal to modify the 

FER equation by eliminating the HCR 

from the denominator and replacing it 

with 830. They argue that this change 

will penalize multi-stage and 

modulating furnaces (AHRI, No. 0034 at 

pg. 2; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 5; Rheem, 

No. 0035 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 

at pg. 2) Goodman also echoed AHRI’s 

comment in regards to the FER 

equation, but added that the cooling 

hours should not be included in FER. 

(Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 5) 

DOE finds that when HCR is included 

in the numerator and denominator of 

the FER equation (as AHRI, Lennox, 

Rheem, Morrison and Goodman 

recommend), FER comparisons between 

multi-stage and single-stage units results 

in an estimated reduction in FER of 

approximately 30 percent when adding 

multi-staging to a product with a 

constant-torque BPM motor. DOE data 

shows that the estimated annual energy 

consumption, as calculated for the FER 

metric, is 15 percent less for multi-stage 

products compared to similar singlestage products. DOE finds that 

eliminating HCR from the denominator 

of the FER equation results in an 

estimated reduction in FER of 15 

percent, which is more consistent with 

estimated annual energy consumption 

comparisons. Consequently, the test 

procedure established by this final rule 

excludes HCR from the denominator of 

the FER equation as proposed in the 

SNOPR. As stated in the SNOPR, 

cooling hours are included pursuant to 

EPCA because electricity used to 

circulate air through duct work occurs 

in cooling and constant circulation 

modes, not just in heating mode. 42 

U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) 

Interested parties suggested 

modifications and alternatives to the 

units of FER and how its factors are 

weighted. ASAP, ACEEE, NCLC, and 

NRDC recommended that DOE 

incorporate a time weighted airflow 

value (i.e., weighted for time spent in 

cooling, heating, and circulation modes) 

instead of choosing the maximum 

airflow. (ACEEE et al., No. 0013 at pg. 

5) Unico suggested that a preferred 

metric to FER would be a weighted 

average watts/cfm for all modes of 

operation to prevent a design push to a 

maximum airflow, where the efficiency 

is measured. (Unico, No. 0015 at pg. 3) 

NRCan stated that normalizing the FER 

rating to produce watts/cfm is difficult 

for stakeholders to understand when 

compared to having a kWh metric. 

(NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 6) Conversely, 

ACEEE stated that a watts/cfm metric is 

better than a kWh/year metric due to the 

number of assumptions and 

extrapolations required to determine 

annual energy consumption. (ACEEE, 

No. 0023 at pg. 198) During the NOPR 

public meeting, NEEA stated operating 

hours should be used to weight average 

fan efficiency watts/cfm and not the 

energy use metric because annual 

energy use will vary more than the 

efficiency of the fan. (NEEA, No. 0023 

at pg. 190) 

DOE considered FER metric variations 

similar to those suggested by ASAP, 

ACEEE, NRDC, NRCan, NEEA and 

Unico. The FER metric established by 

this final rule is not normalized by a 

time-weighted airflow value instead of 

the maximum airflow, as ACEEE et al. 

suggests, because the additional 

measurements required to determine 

airflow in additional airflow-control 

settings would increase test burden. The 

metric recommended by NEEA would 

also require added burden to measure 

airflow in additional airflow-control 

settings. DOE disagrees with Unico that 

FER will incentivize manufacturers to 

only optimize performance in the 

maximum airflow-control setting 

because FER is determined based on 

furnace fan electrical input 

measurements in multiple airflowcontrol settings across the entire range 

of expected operation. DOE disagrees 

with NRCan that interested parties will 

have difficulty understanding a metric 

in units of watts per 1000 cfm. 

Interested parties are familiar with 

discussing fan efficiency in terms of 

watts per 1000 cfm, as this is how fan 

performance is estimated in the 

alternative rating method for coil-only 

CAC products. 

Interested parties commented on 

DOE’s estimated national average 

operating hours and how these 

estimates are used in determining FER. 

Ingersoll Rand questions the value of 

using operating hours because those 

estimates come from such a small 

section of the country, and suggested 

evaluating performance of the appliance 

based on the end condition, removing 

any dependence on location. (Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 0023 at pg. 198) Rheem stated 

that it does not agree that DOE has the 

authority to set an energy conservation 

standard that weights multiple metrics 

(45% heating mode, 34% cooling mode, 

21% circulation mode) to create a single 

FER for furnace fans. (Rheem, No. 0025 

at pg. 3) ASAP, ACEEE, NCLC, and 

NRDC strongly support DOE’s proposal 

to incorporate multiple measures of 

power consumption into the certifiable 

rating metric, including heating, 

cooling, and constant circulation modes. 

(ACEEE et al., No. 0013 at pg. 2) NRCan, 

NPCC, and NEEA suggested that DOE 

consider developing fan efficiency 

ratings for different climatic conditions 

which would entail development of 

different assumptions regarding the 

operating hours in each mode, 

mimicking DOE’s rating procedures for 

heat pumps. (NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 1 

and NPCC/ NEEA, No. 0022 at pg. 7) 

Goodman stated that the FER metric 

does not accurately portray to the 

consumer what the relative energy 

consumption would be as applied in 

different regions and in different 

applications. According to Goodman, 

weighting energy consumption on a 

‘‘national average’’ basis can potentially 

cause consumers in either northern or 

southern regions to choose a product 

that has a lower FER rating, but actually 

consumes more energy for their locale. 

(Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 5) Goodman 

stated that a product with a higher 

SEER, HSPF or AFUE metric will 

consume less energy annually regardless 

of climate region than a different 

product with a lower SEER, HSPF or 

AFUE. However, this is not the case 

with the FER metric. (Goodman, No. 

0017 at pg. 2) 

DOE acknowledges the concerns of 

Ingersoll Rand, NRCan, and Goodman 

that using national average operating 

hours may not result in ratings that are 

reflective of furnace fan energy 

consumption in all climate regions. 

However, the residential furnace fan 

energy conservation standard will result 

in a national standard, not a regional 

standard. Consequently, the metric 

established by this final rule is 

proportional to the estimated national 

average annual energy consumption of 

furnace fans. As detailed in the NOPR, 

DOE’s estimated national average 

furnace fan cooling and heating hours 

are based on data sources that include 

inputs from all U.S. climate regions. 77 

FR 28680 (May 15, 2012) DOE 

recognizes that its estimated national 

average constant circulation hours are 

based on limited data from a single 

climatic region. As described in the 

NOPR, DOE made adjustments to its 

national average constant circulation 

hours estimate to account for climate 

region biases. 77 FR 28683 (May 15, 

2012) Interested parties did not provide 

any additional data with which DOE 

could revise its estimate for national 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
516 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

6The ‘‘eb’’ metric is a ratio of the electrical energy 

consumed by the furnace fan to the total fuel and 

electrical energy consumed by the furnace. 

7According to NPCC/NEEA, air leakage is also a 

matter of health and safety when an air handler is 

located in a garage because contaminants often 

found in garages are pulled in by the air handler 

and delivered to the home. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 

at pg. 4) 

average constant circulation hours. DOE 

disagrees with Rheem that DOE does not 

have the authority to issue standards 

based on a weighted metric. EPCA does 

not contain language limiting DOE’s 

authority to determine the appropriate 

metric. Accordingly, determining the 

nature of a technical measurement is 

within the scope of authority delegated 

to the agency. 

AGA recommends that DOE include a 

secondary FER that would convert the 

primary FER using the extended site 

measure of energy consumption until 

DOE/EERE can consider and complete a 

transition to the use of full-fuel-cycle 

measure of energy consumption. The 

addition of a secondary energy 

descriptor to capture full-fuel-cycle 

efficiency would be in line with the 

general response to the National 

Research Council (NRC) 

recommendations on appliance 

efficiency ratings that would also be 

applicable to ‘‘furnace fans.’’ (AGA, No. 

0040 at pg. 1) 

DOE will continue to set energy 

conservation standards for covered 

products based on energy consumption 

at the point-of-use, as required by EPCA, 

as amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)–(6), 

6311(3)(4), (18)) Consequently, DOE 

does not require a secondary FER that 

captures full-fuel-cycle energy 

consumption. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 

2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(August 17, 2012). However, DOE used 

FFC measures of energy use and 

greenhouse gas (GHG) and other 

emissions in the national impact 

analysis and environmental analysis for 

the furnace fan energy conservation 

standard rulemaking. 78 FR 64127 

(October 25, 2013) 

Interested parties commented that the 

rating metric should be tied to heating 

performance and capacity. Taitem 

Engineering, PC is concerned about a 

rating metric that is based on power 

demand per unit of airflow. They 

recommend a metric based on power 

demand per delivered unit of heat be 

used. (Taitem, No. 0033 at p. 1) Unico 

and Morrison added that since furnacetype products are purchased for their 

heating capacity, an artificial 

mechanism like watts/cfm should not be 

used. (Unico, No. 0023 at pg. 94; 

Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 113) Morrison 

noted that the metric proposed in the 

NOPR moves too far away from end-user 

application, and would prefer the metric 

was tied to heating performance and 

capacity of the unit so that the energy 

descriptor is useful to consumers. 

(Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 133) Unico 

suggested that a watts/cfm metric would 

make a product’s efficiency look worse 

than it actually is compared to using a 

BTU output comparison. (Unico, No. 

0023 at pg. 112) 

DOE recognizes that a metric based on 

power demand per unit of heat, as 

suggested by Taitem, Unico and 

Morrison, could be useful. However, 

furnace fans consume electricity to 

circulate air through duct work in 

modes that are not for heating (i.e., 

cooling and constant circulation). FER 

accounts for energy consumption in 

heating and non-heating modes and is 

therefore, a more appropriate metric for 

this test procedure. FER, as described in 

section II, is the rating metric for the test 

procedure established by this final rule. 

Pertaining to the rating metric, AHRI 

and Morrison commented that the note 

under Appendix AA to Subpart B of 

Part 430 on page 19625 of the SNOPR 

should be revised to clarify that it 

pertains to the FER rating metric. (AHRI, 

No. 0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 

at pg. 2) 

DOE recognizes that furnace fan 

manufacturers may already include raw 

fan energy use at various operating 

conditions in product literature. DOE 

also realizes that furnace fan 

manufacturers use fan energy metrics 

other than FER to report and make 

representations of fan energy 

consumption and efficiency. Pursuant to 

EPCA, manufacturers of covered 

products must use the applicable test 

procedure as the basis for certifying to 

DOE that their products comply with 

the applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA 

and for making representations about 

the efficiency of those products. (42 

U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) DOE’s 

regulations allow for representations 

and reporting of raw fan energy 

consumption in various airflow-control 

settings and at varying ESP in addition 

to FER. While DOE is not including fan 

energy consumption for individual 

functions of operation (i.e., cooling, 

heating, and constant circulation) in the 

certification requirements for this rule, 

manufacturers can use these 

representations as long as they are made 

in accordance with the test procedure 

established by this rule. In regards to 

other metrics, manufacturers may 

continue using the annual auxiliary 

electrical energy consumption (Eae) 

metric as specified by the DOE furnace 

test procedure as long as it is reported 

in conjunction with FER once 

compliance with FER is required. 

Manufacturers cannot use any other 

metrics to make representations about 

furnace fan energy consumption or 

efficiency beginning 180 days after 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. DOE understands that 

current ENERGY STAR specifications 

are based on a different metric, e, which 

is furnace fan energy consumption as a 

percentage of total furnace energy 

consumption. Since manufacturers are 

prohibited from making representations 

of furnace fan efficiency using a metric 

other than FER after 180 days, DOE will 

work with EPA to transition the 

ENERGY STAR program. 

During the NOPR public meeting, 

both AHRI and Allied Air stated that 

they feel that DOE should consider 

adopting the EISA eb metric because it 

allows for relative electrical 

performance comparison of furnace fans 

without imposing unnecessary burden 

of air flow measurement at additional 

external static pressures.6 (AHRI, No. 

0023 at pg. 16; Allied Air, No. 0023 at 

pg. 129) On the other hand, ACEEE 

stated that they would be very 

uncomfortable with consideration of 

using eb because eb was originally 

developed as a threshold mechanism for 

incentive programs that wanted to 

recognize efficient air handlers. (ACEEE, 

No. 0023 at pg. 125) In more recent 

written comments in response to the 

SNOPR, AHRI (with the support of 

manufacturers) proposed an alternative 

test method that included the use of 

FER as proposed by DOE in the SNOPR 

as the rating metric. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 

3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 

at p. 3) 

DOE believes that BE, e, and eb are 

less appropriate than FER, because they 

are based on measurements at one 

operating point for units with singlestage heating or measurements at two 

operating points for units with multistage or modulating heating. These 

metrics do not account for operation in 

cooling or constant circulation modes. 

Also, these metrics are inappropriate 

because they are measured at ESPs that 

are not representative of field 

conditions. 

N. Air Leakage 

NPCC and NEEA are concerned about 

the impacts of air handler cabinet 

leakage on energy efficiency and health 

and safety.7 NPCC/NEEA field testing 

has shown that cabinet leakage can 

occur on the order of one to five 

percent. According to NPCC/NEEA, the 

appropriate amount of air to measure is 

the amount of air excluding cabinet air 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 517 

leakage in the process of rating the 

efficiency with which air is delivered to 

a residence. NPCC/NEEA strongly 

recommends that DOE require testing of 

air handlers using ANSI/ASHRAE 193– 

2010, and either adjusting the air 

delivered by an air handler accordingly 

before calculating FER (and therefore 

the rated efficiency of the air handler), 

or providing a separate rating for cabinet 

leakage, so that consumers and 

contractors can choose the bestperforming products for the market. 

(NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 4) CA 

IOU also recommends the adoption of 

ASHRAE 193–2010 for measuring air 

leakage, which should also be 

incorporated into the FER. (CA IOU, No. 

0032 at p. 2) 

DOE disagrees with NPCC, NEEA, and 

CA IOU that the test procedure 

established by this final rule should 

incorporate ANSI/ASHRAE 193–2010 to 

account for cabinet air leakage. The test 

procedure established by this final rule 

calculates airflow such that the results 

do not include any air that may have 

leaked from the cabinet upstream of the 

heat exchanger. This air will not have 

absorbed any significant amount of heat 

before leaking from the cabinet. Hence 

the heat addition will cause a greater 

temperature rise in the remaining air 

that does absorb heat from the heat 

exchanger, and for which temperature is 

measured by the discharge temperature 

sensors. Hence, assuming that most of 

the leaked air absorbs a negligible 

amount of heat before leaking out of the 

cabinet, the measurement already takes 

the air leakage into account. Air that 

does not pass over the heat exchanger 

(which would include air leaked 

through the cabinet upstream of the heat 

exchanger, or air that passes near 

potential leakage gaps in the cabinet 

casing surrounding, but distant from, 

the heat exchanger) is not included in 

the equation. 

O. Brushless Permanent Magnet Motor 

Issues 

In the NOPR, DOE requested 

comment on whether independent test 

labs would have difficulty selecting and 

operating a furnace fan in the airflowcontrol settings DOE proposed in the 

NOPR. 77 FR 28697 May 15, 2012 UTC, 

Rheem, and Morrison confirmed that 

independent test labs will need 

additional guidance on motor control 

and recommends that the independent 

test laboratory be allowed to confer with 

the individual manufacturers on 

particular models. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 

6; Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 9; Morrison, 

No. 0021 at pg. 7) DOE expects that 

independent test labs would have 

difficulty selecting and operating 

furnace fans in combinations of airflowcontrol and heating/cooling/circulation 

settings for which they are not intended 

to operate (i.e., firing the burner while 

the circulation fan operates in an 

airflow-control setting designated only 

for cooling). The test procedure 

established by this final rule does not 

specify combinations of settings for 

which a product is not designed. 

Consequently, independent test labs 

will be able to achieve operating settings 

required by this rule without guidance 

from manufacturers other than the 

product literature that is shipped with 

the product. 

P. Manufacturer Burden 

In response to the NOPR, AHRI stated 

that it found the manufacturer testing 

burden to be high since it includes 

AFUE, standby and off mode 

requirements, FER rating at different 

static pressures outside of ASHRAE 103, 

airflow measurements, as well as 

Canada’s new and different furnace fan 

metric. (AHRI, No. 0023 at pg. 238) 

Morrison believes the DOE estimated 

testing cost of 2% of the manufacturer 

selling price in the NOPR does not 

account for the cumulative regulatory 

burden associated with the AFUE, 

standby and off mode, and fan 

efficiency. (Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 9) 

Additionally, Morrison believes that the 

test burden of the NOPR proposal will 

be increased because this is a second 

static test point in addition to what is 

already required under the DOE AFUE 

testing. (Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 152) 

Rheem commented that they do not 

currently have airflow data to rate 

current furnace models using the 

proposed metric, and it is not 

reasonable to assume manufacturers 

already have this data. (Rheem, No. 

0025 at pg. 3) Lennox stated that due to 

variability in motor performance, 

manufacturing and testing, more than 

two units may need to be tested for 

some models. The additional testing 

time, engineering time to review and 

convert data into the FER calculation, 

along with time required to statistically 

develop the FER rating and maintain the 

required DOE documentation, are 

additional burdens. (Lennox, No. 0012 

at pg. 4) Since the SNOPR, AHRI (with 

the support of a number of 

manufacturers) proposed a method of 

calculating airflow based on 

temperature rise, which would 

significantly reduce test burden because 

it can be measured using procedures 

and a test setup consistent with those 

used for the DOE test procedure for 

furnaces (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, 

No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3). 

DOE realizes that the cumulative 

effect of multiple regulations on an 

industry may significantly increase the 

burden faced by manufacturers that 

need to comply with regulations and 

testing requirements from different 

organizations and levels of government. 

DOE considers the cumulative cost of 

multiple regulations on manufacturers 

in the cumulative regulatory burden 

section in the standards NOPR 

published on October 25, 2013. 78 FR 

64103 DOE agrees that the key concept 

embodied in the alternative method 

suggested by AHRI and manufacturers 

(using the AFUE test set up and 

temperature rise to determine airflow) 

provides reasonable FER values at a 

significantly reduced burden to 

manufacturers. The test procedure 

established by this final rule adopts a 

modified version of the test method 

presented by AHRI as the furnace fan 

test procedure to minimize test burden. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that test 

procedure rulemakings do not constitute 

‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 

Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 

51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 

action was not subject to review under 

the Executive Order by the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law 

must be proposed for public comment, 

unless the agency certifies that the rule, 

if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the DOE 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: http://energy.gov/

gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE reviewed today’s rule under the 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act and the procedures and policies 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
518 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

8U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of 

Small Business Size Standards (August 22, 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/

files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf). 

9The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute, Directory of Certified 

Product Performance (June 2009) (Available at: 

http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/

home.aspx). 

10The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 

the U.S. Department of Energy, ENERGY STAR 

Furnaces—Product Databases for Gas and Oil 

Furnaces (May 15, 2009) (Available at: http://

www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=furnaces.pr_

furnaces). 

11The California Energy Commission, Appliance 

Database for Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

(2009) (Available at: http://

www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspx). 

12Consortium of Energy Efficiency, Qualifying 

Furnace and Boiler List (April 2, 2009) (Available 

at: http://www.ceedirectory.org/ceedirectory/pages/

cee/ ceeDirectoryInfo.aspx). 

published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 

7990. DOE has concluded that the 

proposed rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The factual basis for this 

certification is as follows: 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers an entity to be a small 

business if, together with its affiliates, it 

employs fewer than a threshold number 

of workers as specified in 13 CFR part 

121. The threshold values set forth in 

these regulations use size standards and 

codes established by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) that are available at: 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The 

threshold number for NAICS 

classification for 333415, which applies 

to Air-Conditioning and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment and Commercial 

and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing (this includes furnace 

fan manufacturers) is 750 employees.8

DOE reviewed AHRI’s Directory of 

Certified Product Performance for 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

(2009),9 the ENERGY STAR Product 

Databases for Gas and Oil Furnaces 

(May 15, 2009),10 the California Energy 

Commission’s Appliance Database for 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers,11 and 

the Consortium for Energy Efficiency’s 

Qualifying Furnace and Boiler List 

(April 2, 2009).12 From this review, DOE 

identified 14 small businesses within 

the furnace fan industry. DOE does not 

believe the test procedure described in 

this rule would represent a substantial 

burden to any manufacturer, including 

small manufacturers, as explained 

below. 

This rule establishes test procedures 

that would be used for representations 

of energy use and to test compliance 

with new energy conservation 

standards, which are being developed in 

a concurrent rulemaking, for the 

products that are the subject of this 

rulemaking. This notice establishes new 

test procedures for active mode testing 

for all such products. The rule will 

require a modified version of the testing 

methods prescribed in a public 

submission from AHRI (the trade 

organization that represents 

manufacturers of furnace fans). The 

AHRI proposal recommends test 

methods that are purposely aligned with 

the current DOE test procedure for 

furnaces in order to minimize test 

burden. (AHRI, No. 26); Appendix N of 

Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. As 

discussed above, this would not 

represent a substantial burden to any 

furnace fan manufacturer, small or large. 

According to AHRI, its proposed 

method would result in an 80 to 90 

percent reduction in test burden 

compared to the test procedure 

proposed by DOE in the NOPR. AHRI 

attributed this reduction primarily to 

manufacturers not having to acquire or 

use any test equipment beyond the 

equipment that is already used to 

conduct the test method specified in the 

DOE furnace test procedure (i.e. the 

AFUE test setup). (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) 

Mortex, a small manufacturer, stated 

that measuring airflow and electrical 

power input at a few more airflowcontrol settings as a part of the existing 

AFUE test procedure should not require 

any capital outlay, unlike the method 

proposed by DOE in the NOPR. (Mortex, 

No. 18 at p. 2.) DOE’s modifications to 

AHRI’s approach will not require 

equipment beyond what is currently 

used to perform the AFUE test. 

Therefore, DOE expects no additional 

cost as the result of the new test 

procedure. 

DOE also expects that the time and 

cost to conduct testing according to the 

proposed test procedure will not be 

significantly burdensome. During 

discussions with manufacturers, DOE 

received feedback that the time to test 

a single unit according to the AHRI 

method would be 30 to 60 percent less 

relative to using the procedure DOE 

proposed in the NOPR. Goodman 

performed tests according to both DOE’s 

NOPR test procedure proposal and 

AHRI’s suggested method and found 

that testing time is reduced by almost 60 

percent using AHRI’s method. 

(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3.) Rheem also 

conducted tests according to both 

procedures and stated that the time to 

test a single-stage furnace was reduced 

from 4 hours to 45 minutes by using the 

AHRI method. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.) 

Assuming that the labor rate for a given 

manufacturer would be the same 

regardless of test method, DOE expects 

that the cost to conduct a test would 

also be reduced by 30 to 60 percent. 

DOE estimated that conducting a test 

according to its NOPR proposed test 

procedure would cost a small 

manufacturer $2.30 per unit shipped. 

This estimate is largely based on DOE’s 

experience with third-party test lab 

labor rates for fan testing. 77 FR at 

28691 (May 15, 2012). A 30 percent 

reduction would yield a conservative 

cost estimate of $1.61 per unit shipped 

to conduct a test according to AHRI’s 

method. DOE does not expect that its 

modifications to the AHRI method 

would result in additional costs to 

conduct a test. DOE finds that the 

selling price for HVAC products that 

incorporate furnace fans ranges from 

approximately $400 to $4,000. 

Therefore, the added cost of testing 

according to DOE’s test procedure 

would be less than one percent of the 

manufacturer selling price (and lower 

than 0.1 percent in some cases). 

For these reasons, DOE certifies that 

the test procedure established by this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. 

DOE will provide its certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

There is currently no information 

collection requirement related to the test 

procedure for furnace fans. In the event 

that DOE proposes an energy 

conservation standard with which 

manufacturers must demonstrate 

compliance, or otherwise proposes to 

require the collection of information 

derived from the testing of furnace fans 

according to this test procedure, DOE 

will seek OMB approval of such 

information collection requirement. 

Manufacturers of covered products 

must certify to DOE that their products 

comply with any applicable energy 

conservation standard. 10 CFR 429.12. 

In certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their products according to the 

applicable DOE test procedure, 

including any amendments adopted for 

that test procedure. See 10 CFR 429.13. 

DOE established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for certain covered 

consumer products and commercial 

equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 

2011). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 519 

recordkeeping was subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

was approved by OMB under OMB 

Control Number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification 

was estimated to average 20 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. 

As stated above, in the event DOE 

proposes an energy conservation 

standard for furnace fans with which 

manufacturers must demonstrate 

compliance, DOE will seek OMB 

approval of the associated information 

collection requirement. DOE will seek 

approval either through a proposed 

amendment to the information 

collection requirement approved under 

OMB control number 1910–1400 or as a 

separate proposed information 

collection requirement. 

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. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

In this final rule, DOE establishes its 

test procedure for furnace fans. DOE has 

determined that this rule falls into a 

class of actions that are categorically 

excluded from review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s 

implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 

1021. Specifically, this rule amends an 

existing rule without affecting the 

amount, quality or distribution of 

energy usage, and, therefore, will not 

result in any environmental impacts. 

Thus, this rulemaking is covered by 

Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, which applies to 

any rulemaking that interprets or 

amends an existing rule without 

changing the environmental effect of 

that rule. Accordingly, neither an 

environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes 

certain requirements on 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 products 

that are the subject of today’s final rule. 

States can petition DOE for exemption 

from such preemption to the extent, and 

based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is 

required by Executive Order 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

Regarding the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 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. Section 3(b) of 

Executive Order 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 Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 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 

Executive Order 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 resulting 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 

proposed ‘‘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 small 

governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820; also available at http://

energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. 

DOE examined today’s final rule 

according to UMRA and its statement of 

policy and determined that the rule 

contains neither an intergovernmental 

mandate, nor a mandate that may result 

in the expenditure of $100 million or 

more in any year, so these requirements 

do not apply. 

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 rule 

that may affect family well-being. 

Today’s final rule will not have 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
520 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

will not result in any takings that might 

require compensation under the Fifth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

J. Review Under 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 agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under 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). DOE has reviewed 

today’s 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 

Executive Order 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 OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgated or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy; or (3) 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. 

Today’s regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

a significant energy action by the 

Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is 

not a significant energy action, and, 

accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 

91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply 

with section 32 of the Federal Energy 

Administration Act of 1974, as amended 

by the Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 

788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially 

provides in relevant part that, where a 

proposed rule authorizes or requires use 

of commercial standards, the notice of 

proposed rulemaking must inform the 

public of the use and background of 

such standards. In addition, section 

32(c) requires DOE to consult with the 

Attorney General and the Chairman of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) 

concerning the impact of the 

commercial or industry standards on 

competition. 

The test procedure established by this 

action incorporates testing methods 

contained in the DOE test procedure for 

furnaces codified in Appendix N or 

Subpart B of part 430 of the CFR (which 

incorporates by reference ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 103, ‘‘Method of 

Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 

Furnaces and Boilers,’’) and ANSI/

ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, ‘‘Methods 

of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment.’’) While today’s 

proposed test procedure is not 

exclusively based on these standards, 

some components of the DOE test 

procedure would adopt definitions, test 

setup, measurement techniques, and 

additional calculations from them 

without any change. DOE has evaluated 

these two versions of this standard and 

is unable to conclude whether it fully 

complies with the requirements of 

section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e. whether 

it was developed in a manner that fully 

provides for public participation, 

comment, and review.) DOE has 

consulted with both the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

about the impact on competition of 

using the methods contained in these 

standards and has received no 

comments objecting to their use. 

M. Congressional Notification 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 

report to Congress on the promulgation 

of today’s rule before its effective date. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

N. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects 

10 CFR Part 429 

Confidential business information, 

Energy conservation, Household 

appliances, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Small 

businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

24, 2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

PART 429—CERTIFICATION, 

COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 429 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Add § 429.58 to read as follows: 

§ 429.58 Furnace fans. 

(a) Sampling plan for selection of 

units for testing. (1) The requirements of 

§ 429.11 are applicable to furnace fans; 

and 

(2) For each basic model of furnace 

fan, a sample of sufficient size shall be 

randomly selected and tested to ensure 

that any represented value of fan energy 

rating (FER), rounded to the nearest 

integer, shall be greater than or equal to 

the higher of: 

(i) The mean of the sample, where: 

And, x ̄ is the sample mean; n is the 

number of samples; and xi is the 

measured value for the ith sample; 

Or, 

(ii) The upper 90 percent confidence 

limit (UCL) of the true mean divided by 

1.05, where: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 521 

And x ̄ is the sample mean; s is the 

sample standard deviation; n is the 

number of samples; and t0.90 is the t 

statistic for a 90% one-tailed confidence 

interval with n-1 degrees of freedom 

(from Appendix A). 

(b) [Reserved] 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 4. Section 430.2 is amended by 

■ a. Adding paragraph (3) to the 

definition for ‘‘basic model’’; and 

■ b. Adding a definition for ‘‘furnace 

fan’’ in alphabetical order. 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 430.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Basic model * * * 

(3) with respect to furnace fans: Are 

marketed and/or designed to be 

installed in the same type of 

installation. 

* * * * * 

Furnace fan means an electricallypowered device used in a consumer 

product for the purpose of circulating 

air through ductwork. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(4) 

through (10) as paragraphs (f)(5) through 

(11); 

■ b. Adding new paragraph (f)(4); 

■ c. Removing, in newly redesignated 

(f)(5), ‘‘Reaffirmed 2001’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘Reaffirmed 2006’’; and 

removing ‘‘appendix E and appendix M 

to subpart B’’ and adding in its place 

‘‘appendices E, M, and AA to subpart 

B’’; 

■ d. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (f)(10); 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, 

(‘‘ASHRAE 37–2009’’), Methods of 

Testing for Rating Electrically Driven 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June 

25, 2009, IBR approved for appendix 

AA to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

(10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103– 

2007, (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2007’’), Methods 

of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central 

Furnaces and Boilers, except for 

sections 7.2.2.5, 8.6.1.1, 9.1.2.2, 9.5.1.1, 

9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, 9.7.1, 

11.2.12, 11.3.12, 11.4.12, 11.5.12 and 

appendices B and C, ANSI approved 

March 25, 2008, IBR approved for 

appendix AA to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 430.23 is amended by 

adding paragraph (cc) to read as follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(cc) Furnace Fans. The energy 

consumption of a single unit of a 

furnace fan basic model expressed in 

watts per 1000 cubic feet per minute 

(cfm) to the nearest integer shall be 

calculated in accordance with Appendix 

AA of this subpart. 

■ 7. Appendix AA to subpart B of part 

430 is added to read as follows: 

Appendix AA to Subpart B of Part 

430—Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Furnace Fans 

Note: Any representation made after July 2, 

2014 for energy consumption of furnace fans 

must be based upon results generated under 

this test procedure. Upon the compliance 

date(s) of any energy conservation 

standard(s) for furnace fans, use of the 

applicable provisions of this test procedure 

to demonstrate compliance with the energy 

conservation standard will also be required. 

1. Scope. This appendix covers the test 

requirements used to measure the energy 

consumption of fans used in weatherized and 

non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, 

electric furnaces, and modular blowers. 

2. Definitions. Definitions include the 

definitions as specified in section 3 of 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3) and the following 

additional definitions, some of which 

supersede definitions found in ASHRAE 

103–2007: 

2.1. Active mode means the condition in 

which the product in which the furnace fan 

is integrated is connected to a power source 

and circulating air through ductwork. 

2.2. Airflow-control settings are 

programmed or wired control system 

configurations that control a fan to achieve 

discrete, differing ranges of airflow—often 

designated for performing a specific function 

(e.g., cooling, heating, or constant 

circulation)—without manual adjustment 

other than interaction with a user-operable 

control such as a thermostat that meets the 

manufacturer specifications for installed-use. 

For the purposes of this appendix, 

manufacturer specifications for installed-use 

shall be found in the product literature 

shipped with the unit. 

2.3. ASHRAE 103–2007 means ANSI/ 

ASHRAE Standard 103–2007, published in 

2007 by ASHRAE, approved by the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI) on 

March 25, 2008, and entitled ‘‘Method of 

Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces 

and Boilers’’. Only those sections of ASHRAE 

103–2007 (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3) specifically referenced in this test 

procedure are part of this test procedure. In 

cases where there is a conflict, the language 

of the test procedure in this appendix takes 

precedence over ASHRAE 103–2007. 

2.4. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–1986 

(RA 2006) means the test standard published 

in 1986, approved by ANSI on February 18, 

1987, reaffirmed in 2006, and entitled 

‘‘Standard Method for Temperature 

Measurement’’ (incorporated by reference; 

see § 430.3). 

2.5. ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 means the 

test standard published in 2009 by ASHRAE 

entitled ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’ (incorporated by reference; see 

§ 430.3). 

2.6. Default airflow-control settings are the 

airflow-control settings specified for 

installed-use by the manufacturer. For the 

purposes of this appendix, manufacturer 

specifications for installed-use are those 

specifications provided for typical consumer 

installations in the product literature shipped 

with the product in which the furnace fan is 

installed. In instances where a manufacturer 

specifies multiple airflow-control settings for 

a given function to account for varying 

installation scenarios, the highest airflowcontrol setting specified for the given 

function shall be used for the procedures 

specified in this appendix. 

2.7. External static pressure (ESP) means 

the difference between static pressures 

measured in the outlet duct and return air 

opening (or return air duct when used for 

testing) of the product in which the furnace 

fan is integrated. 

2.8. Furnace fan means an electricallypowered device used in a consumer product 

for the purpose of circulating air through 

ductwork. 

2.9. Modular blower means a product 

which only uses single-phase electric 

current, and which: 

(a) Is designed to be the principal air 

circulation source for the living space of a 

residence; 

(b) Is not contained within the same 

cabinet as a furnace or central air 

conditioner; and 

(c) Is designed to be paired with HVAC 

products that have a heat input rate of less 

than 225,000 Btu per hour and cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu per hour. 

2.10. Off mode means the condition in 

which the product in which the furnace fan 

is integrated either is not connected to the 

power source or is connected to the power 

source but not energized. 

2.11. Seasonal off switch means a switch 

on the product in which the furnace fan is 

integrated that, when activated, results in a 

measurable change in energy consumption 

between the standby and off modes. 

2.12. Standby mode means the condition in 

which the product in which the furnace fan 

is integrated is connected to the power 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.006</GPH>
522 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

source, energized, but the furnace fan is not 

circulating air. 

2.13. Thermal stack damper means a type 

of stack damper that opens only during the 

direct conversion of thermal energy of the 

stack gases. 

3. Classifications. Classifications are as 

specified in section 4 of ASHRAE 103–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

4. Requirements. Requirements are as 

specified in section 5 of ASHRAE 103–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). In 

addition, Fan Energy Rating (FER) of furnace 

fans shall be determined using test data and 

estimated national average operating hours 

pursuant to section 10.10 of this appendix. 

5. Instruments. Instruments must be as 

specified in section 6, not including section 

6.2, of ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3); and as specified in 

section 5.1 and 5.2 of this appendix. 

5.1. Temperature. Temperature measuring 

instruments shall meet the provisions 

specified in section 5.1 of ASHRAE 37–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and 

shall be accurate to within 0.75 degree 

Fahrenheit (within 0.4 degrees Celsius). 

5.1.1. Outlet Air Temperature 

Thermocouple Grid. Outlet air temperature 

shall be measured as described in section 

8.2.1.5.5 of ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated 

by reference, see § 430.3) and illustrated in 

Figure 2 of ASHRAE 103–2007. 

Thermocouples shall be placed downstream 

of pressure taps used for external static 

pressure measurement. 

5.2. Humidity. Air humidity shall be 

measured with a relative humidity sensor 

that is accurate to within 5% relative 

humidity. Air humidity shall be measured as 

close as possible to the inlet of the product 

in which the furnace fan is installed. 

6. Apparatus. The apparatus used in 

conjunction with the furnace during the 

testing shall be as specified in section 7 of 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3) except for section 7.1, 

the second paragraph of section 7.2.2.2, 

section 7.2.2.5, and section 7.7, and as 

specified in sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,6.4, 6.5 and 

6.6 of this appendix. 

6.1. General. The product in which the 

furnace fan is integrated shall be installed in 

the test room in accordance with the product 

manufacturer’s written instructions that are 

shipped with the product unless required 

otherwise by a specific provision of this 

appendix. The apparatus described in this 

section is used in conjunction with the 

product in which the furnace fan is 

integrated. Each piece of the apparatus shall 

conform to material and construction 

specifications and the reference standard 

cited. Test rooms containing equipment shall 

have suitable facilities for providing the 

utilities necessary for performance of the test 

and be able to maintain conditions within the 

limits specified. 

6.2. Downflow furnaces. Install the internal 

section of vent pipe the same size as the flue 

collar for connecting the flue collar to the top 

of the unit, if not supplied by the 

manufacturer. Do not insulate the internal 

vent pipe during the jacket loss test (if 

conducted) described in section 8.6 of 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3) or the steady-state test 

described in section 9.1 of ASHRAE 103– 

2007. Do not insulate the internal vent pipe 

before the cool-down and heat-up tests 

described in sections 9.5 and 9.6, 

respectively, of ASHRAE 103–2007. If the 

vent pipe is surrounded by a metal jacket, do 

not insulate the metal jacket. Install a 5-ft test 

stack of the same cross sectional area or 

perimeter as the vent pipe above the top of 

the furnace. Tape or seal around the junction 

connecting the vent pipe and the 5-ft test 

stack. Insulate the 5-ft test stack with 

insulation having a minimum R-value of 7 

and an outer layer of aluminum foil. (See 

Figure 3–E of ASHRAE 103–2007.) 

6.3. Modular Blowers. A modular blower 

shall be equipped with the electric heat 

resistance kit that is likely to have the largest 

volume of retail sales with that particular 

basic model of modular blower. 

6.4. Ducts and Plenums. Ducts and 

plenums shall be built to the geometrical 

specifications in section 7 of ASHRAE 103– 

2007. An apparatus for measuring external 

static pressure shall be integrated in the 

plenum and test duct as specified in sections 

6.4, excluding specifications regarding the 

minimum length of the ducting and 

minimum distance between the external 

static pressure taps and product inlet and 

outlet, and 6.5 of ASHRAE 37–2009 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

External static pressure measuring 

instruments shall be placed between the 

furnace openings and any restrictions or 

elbows in the test plenums or ducts. For all 

test configurations, external static pressure 

taps shall be placed 18 inches from the 

outlet. 

6.4.1. For tests conducted using a return air 

duct. Additional external static pressure taps 

shall be placed 12 inches from the product 

inlet. Pressure shall be directly measured as 

a differential pressure as depicted in Figure 

8 of ASHRAE 37–2009 rather than 

determined by separately measuring inlet 

and outlet static pressure and subtracting the 

results. 

6.4.2. For tests conducted without a return 

air duct. External static pressure shall be 

directly measured as the differential pressure 

between the outlet duct static pressure and 

the ambient static pressure as depicted in 

Figure 7a of ASHRAE 37–2009. 

6.5. Air Filters. Air filters shall be removed. 

6.6. Electrical Measurement. Only 

electrical input power to the furnace fan (and 

electric resistance heat kit for electric 

furnaces and modular blowers) shall be 

measured for the purposes of this appendix. 

Electrical input power to the furnace fan and 

electric resistance hate kit shall be submetered separately. Electrical input power to 

all other electricity-consuming components 

of the product in which the furnace fan is 

integrated shall not be included in the 

electrical input power measurements used in 

the FER calculation. If the procedures of this 

appendix are being conducted at the same 

time as another test that requires metering of 

components other than the furnace fan and 

electric resistance heat kit, the electrical 

input power to the furnace fan and electric 

resistance heat kit shall be sub-metered 

separately from one another and separately 

from other electrical input power 

measurements. 

7. Test Conditions. The testing conditions 

shall be as specified in section 8, not 

including section 8.6.1.1, of ASHRAE 103– 

2007 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3); 

and as specified in section 7.1 of this 

appendix. 

7.1. Measurement of Jacket Surface 

Temperature (optional). The jacket of the 

furnace or boiler shall be subdivided into 6- 

inch squares when practical, and otherwise 

into 36-square-inch regions comprising 4 in. 

x 9 in. or 3 in. x 12 in. sections, and the 

surface temperature at the center of each 

square or section shall be determined with a 

surface thermocouple. The 36-square-inch 

areas shall be recorded in groups where the 

temperature differential of the 36-square-inch 

area is less than 10 °F for temperature up to 

100 °F above room temperature and less than 

20 °F for temperature more than 100 °F above 

room temperature. For forced air central 

furnaces, the circulating air blower 

compartment is considered as part of the 

duct system and no surface temperature 

measurement of the blower compartment 

needs to be recorded for the purpose of this 

test. For downflow furnaces, measure all 

cabinet surface temperatures of the heat 

exchanger and combustion section, including 

the bottom around the outlet duct, and the 

burner door, using the 36 square-inch 

thermocouple grid. The cabinet surface 

temperatures around the blower section do 

not need to be measured (see figure 3–E of 

ASHRAE 103–2007.) 

8. Test Procedure. Testing and 

measurements shall be as specified in section 

9 of ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3) except for sections 

9.1.2.1, 9.3, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 

9.5.2.1, and section 9.7.1; and as specified in 

sections 8.1 through 8.6 of this appendix. 

8.1. Direct Measurement of Off-Cycle 

Losses Testing Method. [Reserved.] 

8.2. Measurement of Electrical Standby 

and Off Mode Power. [Reserved] 

8.3. Steady-State Conditions for Gas and 

Oil Furnaces. Steady-state conditions are 

indicated by an external static pressure 

within the range shown in Table 1 and a 

temperature variation in three successive 

readings, taken 15 minutes apart, of not more 

than any of the following: 

(a) 3 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with draft diverters; 

(b) 5 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with either draft hoods, 

direct exhaust, or direct vent systems; and 

(c) 1 °F in the flue gas temperature for 

condensing furnaces. 

8.4. Steady-state Conditions for Electric 

Furnaces and Modular Blowers. Steady-state 

conditions are indicated by an external static 

pressure within the range shown in Table 1 

and a temperature variation of not more than 

5 °F in the outlet air temperature in four 

successive temperature readings taken 15 

minutes apart. 

8.5. Steady-State Conditions for Cold Flow 

Tests. For tests during which the burner or 

electric heating elements are turned off (i.e., 

cold flow tests), steady-state conditions are 

indicated by an external static pressure 

within the range shown in Table 1 and a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 523 

variation in the difference between outlet 

temperature and ambient temperature of not 

more than 3 °F in three successive 

temperature readings taken 15 minutes apart. 

8.6. Fan Energy Rating (FER) Test. 

8.6.1. Initial FER test conditions and 

maximum airflow-control setting 

measurements. Measure the relative 

humidity (W) and dry bulb temperature (Tdb) 

of the test room. 

8.6.1.1. Furnace fans for which the 

maximum airflow-control setting is not a 

default heating airflow-control setting. The 

main burner or electric heating elements 

shall be turned off. Adjust the external static 

pressure to within the range shown in Table 

1 by symmetrically restricting the outlet of 

the test duct. Maintain these settings until 

steady-state conditions are attained as 

specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this 

appendix. Measure furnace fan electrical 

input power (EMax), external static pressure 

(ESPMax), and outlet air temperature 

(TMax,Out). 

8.6.1.2. Furnace fans for which the 

maximum airflow-control setting is a default 

heating airflow-control setting. Adjust the 

main burner or electric heating element 

controls to the default heat setting designated 

for the maximum airflow-control setting. 

Burner adjustments shall be made as 

specified by section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103– 

2007 (incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 

Adjust the furnace fan controls to the 

maximum airflow-control setting. Adjust the 

external static to within the range shown in 

Table 1 by symmetrically restricting the 

outlet of the test duct. Maintain these settings 

until steady-state conditions are attained as 

specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this 

appendix and the temperature rise (DTMax) is 

at least 18 °F. Measure furnace fan electrical 

input power (EMax), fuel or electric resistance 

heat kit input energy (QIN, Max), external static 

pressure (ESPMax), steady-state efficiency for 

this setting (EffySS, Max) as specified in 

sections 11.2 and 11.3 of ASHRAE 103–2007, 

outlet air temperature (TMax,Out), and 

temperature rise (DTMax) 

TABLE 1—REQUIRED MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE IN THE MAXIMUM AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTING

BY INSTALLATION TYPE

Installation type ESP (in. wc.) * 

Units with an internal, factory-installed evaporator 

coil ..................................... 0.50–0.55 

Units designed to be paired 

with an evaporator coil, but 

without one installed ......... 0.65–0.70 

Mobile home ......................... 0.30–0.35 

Once the specified ESP has been achieved, 

the same outlet duct restrictions shall be 

used for the remainder of the furnace fan test. 

8.6.2. Constant circulation airflow-control 

setting measurements. The main burner or 

electric heating elements shall be turned off. 

The furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to 

the default constant circulation airflowcontrol setting. If the manufacturer does not 

specify a constant circulation airflow-control 

setting, the lowest airflow-control setting 

shall be used. Maintain these settings until 

steady-state conditions are attained as 

specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this 

appendix. Measure furnace fan electrical 

input power (ECirc) and external static 

pressure (ESPCirc). 

8.6.3. Heating airflow-control setting 

measurements. For single-stage gas and oil 

furnaces, the burner shall be fired at the 

maximum heat input rate. For single-stage 

electric furnaces, the electric heating 

elements shall be energized at the maximum 

heat input rate. For multi-stage and 

modulating furnaces the reduced heat input 

rate settings shall be used. Burner 

adjustments shall be made as specified by 

section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). After 

the burner is activated and adjusted or the 

electric heating elements are energized, the 

furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to 

operate the fan in the default heat airflowcontrol setting. In instances where a 

manufacturer specifies multiple airflowcontrol settings for a given function to 

account for varying installation scenarios, the 

highest airflow-control setting specified for 

the given function shall be used. High heat 

and reduced heat shall be considered 

different functions for multi-stage heating 

units. Maintain these settings until steadystate conditions are attained as specified in 

section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix and 

the temperature rise (DTHeat) is at least 18 °F. 

Measure furnace fan electrical input power 

(EHeat), external static pressure (ESPHeat), 

steady-state efficiency for this setting (EffySS) 

as specified in sections 11.2 and 11.3 of 

ASHRAE 103–2007, outlet air temperature 

(THeat, Out) and temperature rise (DTHeat). 

9. Nomenclature. Nomenclature shall 

include the nomenclature specified in 

section 10 of ASHRAE 103–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and 

the following additional variables: 

CH = annual furnace fan cooling hours 

CCH = annual furnace fan constantcirculation hours 

ECirc = furnace fan electrical consumption at 

the default constant-circulation airflowcontrol setting (or minimum airflowcontrol setting operating point if a default 

constant-circulation airflow-control setting 

is not specified), in watts 

EHeat = furnace fan electrical consumption in 

the default heat airflow-control setting for 

single-stage heating products or the default 

low-heat setting for multi-stage heating 

products, in watts 

EMax = furnace fan electrical consumption in 

the maximum airflow-control setting, in 

watts 

ESPi = external static pressure, in inches 

water column, at time of the electrical 

power measurement in airflow-control 

setting i, where i can be ‘‘Circ’’ to represent 

constant-circulation (or minimum airflow) 

mode, ‘‘Heat’’ to represent heating mode, 

or ‘‘Max’’ to represent cooling (or 

maximum airflow) mode. 

FER = fan energy rating, in watts/1000 cfm 

HH = annual furnace fan heating operating 

hours 

HCR = heating capacity ratio (nameplate 

reduced heat input capacity divided by 

nameplate maximum input heat capacity) 

kref = physical descriptor characterizing the 

reference system 

Tdb = dry bulb temperature of the test room, 

in °F 

Ti, In = inlet air temperature at time of the 

electrical power measurement, in °F, in 

airflow-control setting i, where i can be 

‘‘Circ’’ to represent constant-circulation (or 

minimum airflow) mode, ‘‘Heat’’ to 

represent heating mode, or ‘‘Max’’ to 

represent maximum airflow (typically 

designated for cooling) mode 

Ti, Out = average outlet air temperature as 

measured by the outlet thermocouple grid 

at time of the electrical power 

measurement, in °F, in airflow-control 

setting i, where i can be ‘‘Circ’’ to represent 

constant-circulation (or minimum airflow) 

mode, ‘‘Heat’’ to represent heating mode, 

or ‘‘Max’’ to represent maximum airflow 

(typically designated for cooling) mode 

DTi = Ti, Out minus Ti, In, which is the air 

throughput temperature rise in setting i, in 

°F 

Qi = airflow in airflow-control setting i, in 

cubic feet per minute (CFM) 

QIN,i = for electric furnaces and modular 

blowers, the measured electrical input 

power to the electric resistance heat kit at 

specified operating conditions i in kW. For 

gas and oil furnaces, measured fuel energy 

input rate, in Btu/h, at specified operating 

conditions i based on the fuel’s high 

heating value determined as required in 

section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3 of ASHRAE 103– 

2007, where i can be ‘‘Max’’ for the 

maximum heat setting or ‘‘R’’ for the 

reduced heat setting. 

W = humidity ratio in pounds water vapor 

per pounds dry air 

vair = specific volume of dry air at specified 

operating conditions per the equations in 

the psychrometric chapter in 2001 

ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals in lb/ 

ft3

10. Calculation of derived results from test 

measurements for a single unit. Calculations 

shall be as specified in section 11 of 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3), except for appendices 

B and C; and as specified in sections 10.1 

through 10.10 and Figure 1 of this appendix. 

10.1. Fan Energy Rating (FER) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.007</GPH>
524 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: Qmax = Qheat for products for which the 

maximum airflow-control setting is a 

default heat setting, or 

for products for which the maximum 

airflow control setting is only designated for 

cooling; and 

The estimated national average operating 

hours presented in Table IV.2 shall be used 

to calculate FER. 

TABLE IV.2—ESTIMATED NATIONAL AVERAGE OPERATING HOUR VALUES FOR CALCULATING FER 

Operating mode Variable Single-stage 

(hours) 

Multi-stage or 

modulating 

(hours) 

Heating ........................................................................ HH ............................................................................... 830 830/HCR. 

Cooling ........................................................................ CH ............................................................................... 640 640. 

Constant Circulation .................................................... CCH ............................................................................ 400 400. 

Where: 

[FR Doc. 2013–31257 Filed 1–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER03JA14.008</GPH> ER03JA14.009</GPH> ER03JA14.010</GPH>