Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41265 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3Under 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5), the statute 

establishes ‘‘furnaces’’ as covered products. 

Originally, boilers were considered a class of 

furnaces. However, amendments to EPCA in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007), 

distinguished between furnaces and boilers in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(f) by adding the text ‘‘and boilers’’ to 

the title of that section and by prescribing standards 

for boiler products. Although EISA 2007 did not 

similarly update 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(5), it is implicit 

that this coverage continues to include boilers. 

harvested green between May 15 and 

August 31. 

(ii) If the lemons are harvested 

between September 1 and May 14, or if 

the fruit is harvested yellow, the lemons 

must be treated in accordance with part 

305 of this chapter for C. capitata. 

(h) Phytosanitary certificate. Each 

consignment of citrus fruit must be 

accompanied by a phytosanitary 

certificate of inspection issued by the 

Uruguayan NPPO stating that the fruit 

in the consignment is free of all pests of 

quarantine concern and has been 

produced in accordance with the 

requirements of the systems approach in 

7 CFR 319.56–59. 

(Approved by the Office of Management and 

Budget under control number 0579–0401) 

Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

June, 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–16548 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–TP–0008] 

RIN 1904–AC96 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 4, 2013, the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

to amend its test procedure for 

residential furnaces and boilers, which 

serves as the basis for today’s action. 

This final rule amends that test 

procedure by adopting new equations to 

facilitate calculation of the annual fuel 

utilization efficiency (AFUE) for certain 

classes of products when omitting 

specified heat-up and cool-down tests, 

as allowed under the test procedure if 

applicable criteria are met. The relevant 

industry test procedure, which is 

incorporated by reference in the current 

DOE test procedure, lacks equations 

necessary for the calculation of the 

heating seasonal efficiency (which 

contributes to the ultimate calculation 

of AFUE) of two-stage and modulating 

condensing furnaces or boilers when the 

option to omit the heat-up and cooldown tests is employed. This final rule 

revises the DOE test procedure to rectify 

this omission by adopting additional 

equations for the calculation of the partload efficiencies at the maximum input 

rate and reduced input rates for twostage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers when the 

manufacturer chooses to omit the heatup and cool-down tests under the test 

procedure. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

August 9, 2013. The compliance date for 

use of the amended test procedure for 

purposes of compliance with energy 

conservation standards, as well as 

representations of energy efficiency or 

energy use, is January 6, 2014. 

Voluntary early compliance is 

permitted. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking is available for review at 

www.regulations.gov, including Federal 

Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-TP0008. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this final rule on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda 

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

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

residential_furnaces_and_boilers

@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

III. Discussion 

A. Statement of the Issue and the NOPR’s 

Proposed Corrective Action 

B. Discussion of Comments 

C. Final Corrective Action 

D. Effective and Compliance Dates 

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 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Authority and Background 

Title III, Part B1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ 

or ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 94–163 (42 

U.S.C. 6291–6309, as codified) set forth 

a variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency and 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles.2 These include 

residential furnaces and boilers, the 

subject of today’srulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(5))3

Under EPCA, the 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: (1) certifying to DOE 

that their products comply with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA, 

and (2) making representations about 

the efficiency of those products. (42 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Similarly, DOE must use these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

products comply with any relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(s)) 

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. 

EPCA provides, in relevant part, that 

any test procedures prescribed or 

amended under this section must 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 must 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)) 

DOE’s current energy conservation 

standards for residential furnaces and 

boilers are expressed as minimum 

AFUE. AFUE is an annualized fuel 

efficiency metric that fully accounts for 

fuel consumption in active, standby, 

and off modes. The existing DOE test 

procedure for determining the AFUE of 

residential furnaces and boilers is 

located at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

Appendix N, Uniform Test Method for 

Measuring the Energy Consumption of 

Furnaces and Boilers. The current DOE 

test procedure for residential furnaces 

and boilers was originally established 

by a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on May 12, 1997, and it 

incorporates by reference the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 103– 

1993, Method of Testing for Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency of Residential 

Central Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 

103–1993). 62 FR 26140, 26157 

(incorporated by reference at 10 CFR 

430.3(f)(9)). On October 14, 1997, DOE 

published an interim final rule in the 

Federal Register to revise a provision 

concerning the insulation of the flue 

collector box in order to ensure the 

updated test procedure would not affect 

the measured AFUE of existing furnaces 

and boilers. 62 FR 53508. This interim 

final rule was subsequently adopted 

without change in a final rule published 

in the Federal Register on February 24, 

1998. 63 FR 9390. 

On October 20, 2010, DOE amended 

its test procedure for furnaces and 

boilers to establish a method for 

measuring the electrical energy use in 

standby mode and off mode for gas and 

oil-fired furnaces and boilers pursuant 

to requirements established by EISA 

2007. 75 FR 64621. These test procedure 

amendments were primarily based on 

and incorporated by reference 

provisions of the International 

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 

Standard 62301 (First Edition), 

Household electrical appliances— 

Measurement of standby power. On 

December 31, 2012, DOE published a 

final rule in the Federal Register that 

updated the incorporation by reference 

of the standby mode and off mode test 

procedure provisions to refer to the 

latest edition of IEC Standard 62301 

(Second Edition). 77 FR 76831. 

On January 4, 2013, DOE published a 

request for information (RFI) in the 

Federal Register seeking comment and 

information on a variety of issues 

relating to the residential furnace and 

boiler AFUE test method. 78 FR 675. 

Key issues discussed in the RFI include 

avenues for reducing test burden and 

the addition of a performance test for 

automatic means of adjusting water 

temperature in hot water boilers. The 

RFI began the process of fulfilling DOE’s 

obligation to periodically review its test 

procedures under 42 U.S.C. 

6293(b)(1)(A) by initiating a rulemaking 

to examine all aspects of the DOE test 

procedure. The RFI is broader in scope 

than today’s final rule, which is limited 

to adding omitted equations to the 

residential furnace and boiler test 

procedure. 

On February 4, 2013, DOE published 

a NOPR in the Federal Register 

(hereinafter the ‘‘February 2013 NOPR’’) 

regarding the test procedure for 

residential furnaces and boilers. The 

February 2013 NOPR was focused on an 

issue with the test procedure where 

equations were missing that would be 

needed to calculate the efficiency of 

two-stage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers tested using an 

option to omit the heat-up and cooldown portions of the test. 78 FR 7681. 

The NOPR proposed the adoption of 

two new test procedure equations that 

would remedy the issue and allow for 

the calculation of the efficiency of twostage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers that were tested 

using the option to omit the heat-up and 

cool-down tests. On March 13, 2013 

DOE held a public meeting to discuss 

the test procedure proposals outlined in 

the February 2013 NOPR. Today’s final 

rule is the culmination of the 

rulemaking process that began with the 

February 2013 NOPR. 

II. Summary of the Final Rule 

Today’s final rule amends DOE’s test 

procedure for residential furnaces and 

boilers by incorporating additional 

equations to account for the use of 

section 9.10 (Optional Test Procedure 

for Condensing Furnaces and Boilers 

That Have No Off-Period Flue Losses) of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, which is 

incorporated by reference into the DOE 

test procedure for two-stage and 

modulating condensing furnaces and 

boilers at Appendix N to subpart B of 

10 CFR part 430. Section 9.10 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 allows certain 

condensing furnaces and boilers to omit 

the heat-up and cool-down tests 

provided that the model: (1) has no 

measurable airflow through the 

combustion chamber and heat 

exchanger during the burner off-period; 

and (2) has post-purge periods of less 

than 5 seconds. 

Prior to issuance of this final rule, 

DOE’s test procedure for residential 

furnaces and boilers lacked the 

equations necessary to calculate the 

heating seasonal efficiency (which 

contributes to the ultimate calculation 

of AFUE) if the option in section 9.10 

is selected and the heat-up and cooldown tests are omitted when testing 

two-stage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers. Omission of these 

equations causes erroneous results for 

AFUE when calculated using the DOE 

test method. (This situation is in 

contrast to that of single-stage 

condensing furnaces and boilers, where 

the requisite equations were already 

present in the DOE test procedure.) 

To correct this issue, DOE proposed to 

adopt two new equations in the 

February 2013 NOPR. These new 

equations would allow for the 

calculation of the part-load efficiencies 

at the maximum input rate and reduced 

input rates (and ultimately AFUE) of 

two-stage and modulating condensing 

furnaces and boilers when omitting the 

heat-up and cool-down tests, as 

provided under section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993. Today’s final rule adopts the 

equations proposed in the February 

2013 NOPR, as described in more detail 

in section III. 

DOE has concluded that any test 

procedure changes resulting from this 

rulemaking should not impact the 

existing energy conservation standards 

for residential furnaces and boilers, 

because such changes simply allow for 

the generation of accurate information 

reflecting the efficiency of affected basic 

models, which typically test above the 

existing minimum standard level. The 

current minimum energy conservation 

standards are based on AFUE ratings 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41267 

that correspond to non-condensing 

furnaces and boilers, and those values 

will not change as a result of today’s 

final rule to remedy the omission of 

necessary equations pertaining to 

condensing models. DOE does not 

foresee that a model that would need to 

be re-rated using the equations adopted 

in today’s final rule would have a 

resulting AFUE below the minimum 

required efficiency. 

III. Discussion 

A. Statement of the Issue and the 

NOPR’s Proposed Corrective Action 

As discussed briefly above, this final 

rule addresses an omission in the 

current DOE test procedure by adopting 

a new set of equations to accurately 

calculate the AFUE for two-stage and 

modulating condensing furnaces and 

boilers when tested pursuant to the 

optional procedure to skip the heat-up 

and cool-down tests, as described in 

section 9.10 of ASHRAE 103–1993. 

Section 9.10 of ASHRAE 103–1993, 

which is incorporated by reference into 

the DOE test procedure for use at 

Appendix N to subpart B of 10 CFR part 

430 allows omission of the heat-up and 

cool-down tests for certain condensing 

furnaces and boilers provided the model 

(1) has no measurable airflow through 

the heat exchanger during the burner off 

period; and (2) has post purge period(s) 

of less than 5 seconds. 

For single-stage condensing furnaces 

and boilers, section 11.3.11.3 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 provides equations 

necessary to accurately calculate the 

heating seasonal efficiency (which 

contributes to the ultimate calculation 

of AFUE). One equation is based on the 

results of the heat-up and cool-down 

tests described in sections 9.5 and 9.6 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 and is to be used if 

these tests were conducted, and the 

other equation is based on the results of 

the steady-state test described in section 

9.1 of ASHRAE 103–1993 and is to be 

used if heat-up and cool-down tests 

were not conducted and the option in 

section 9.10 was employed instead. 

For two-stage and modulating 

condensing furnaces and boilers there 

are no equations provided in ASHRAE 

103–1993 to calculate the heating 

seasonal efficiency if the option in 

section 9.10 is selected. The only 

equation provided in the test procedure 

to calculate the heating seasonal 

efficiency for two-stage and modulating 

condensing furnaces and boilers 

requires values for the part-load 

efficiencies, which are based on the 

results of the heat-up and cool-down 

tests. If two-stage and modulating 

condensing furnaces or boilers were 

tested and the heat-up and cool-down 

tests were omitted in accordance with 

section 9.10, the part-load efficiencies, 

heating seasonal efficiency, and 

resulting AFUE would not be able to be 

calculated using the equations provided 

in the DOE test method. 

DOE is aware that many boiler 

manufacturers have utilized the 

optional section 9.10 provisions for twostage and modulating condensing 

boilers, regardless of the fact that no 

equations exist in section 11.5.11 that 

would provide for the calculation of the 

part-load efficiencies for such 

equipment. In calculating the AFUE, 

DOE believes manufacturers that opted 

to omit the heat-up and cool-down 

portions of the test have erroneously 

used ‘‘0’’ for the temperatures that 

would be taken during the heat-up and 

cool-down tests. Research into this issue 

conducted by the furnace and boiler 

industry trade association (i.e., the Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI)) revealed that AFUE 

values calculated for boilers using this 

approach could be inflated from one to 

four percent above their true values. 

(AHRI, No. 1 at p. 6) 

In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE 

proposed to amend the test procedure to 

include equations for calculating partload efficiencies at the maximum input 

rate and at reduced input rates and, 

ultimately, the AFUE of two-stage and 

modulating condensing furnaces and 

boilers when utilizing the option to omit 

the heat-up and cool-down tests, as 

provided under section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993. DOE developed these 

equations in the February 2013 NOPR 

by following the concept of replacing 

cyclic infiltration and sensible heat 

losses with steady-state infiltration and 

sensible heat losses. This concept is 

already used in ASHRAE 103–1993 for 

single-stage units and can be applied to 

two-stage and modulating units as well. 

DOE proposed to add the following 

equations to Appendix N in the 

February 2013 NOPR for calculating the 

part-load efficiency at reduced and 

maximum fuel input rates for two-stage 

and modulating units that are tested 

according to section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993: 

Part-Load Efficiency at Reduced Fuel 

Input Rate 

Where: 

LS,SS = value as defined in section 11.5.6 at 

reduced input rate 

CS = value as defined in section 11.5.10.1 at 

reduced input rate 

Part-Load Efficiency at Maximum Fuel 

Input Rate 

Where: 

L S,SS = value as defined in section 11.5.6 at 

maximum input rate 

CS = value as defined in section 11.5.10.1 at 

maximum input rate 

78 FR 7681, 7694–95 (Feb. 4, 2013). 

DOE conducted testing on two 

modulating condensing residential 

boilers to validate the equations shown 

above. The test results verified that 

AFUE values determined by omitting 

the heat-up and cool-down tests and 

using the new equations were consistent 

with the AFUE values determined using 

the heat-up and cool-down tests. As the 

results presented in the February 2013 

NOPR demonstrate, there was no more 

than a 0.04 percent variance in AFUE 

determined under the new equations, as 

compared to the AFUE determined 

using the results of the heat-up and 

cool-down tests. 78 FR 7681, 7686–89 

(Feb. 4, 2013). In DOE’s view, the 

difference between the two calculation 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10JY13.000</GPH> ER10JY13.001</GPH>
41268 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

methods is small enough that the AFUE 

values using the new equations are 

representative of the actual performance 

of the models. Thus, the resulting values 

are an accurate representation of the 

product’s energy efficiency for 

consumer information purposes. 

Further, the adoption of the new 

equations would result in minimal 

additional test burden for manufacturers 

that need to recalculate efficiency 

ratings, or would reduce test burden for 

manufacturers in comparison to 

performing heat-up and cool-down tests. 

B. Discussion of Comments 

In addition to input at the March 2013 

public meeting, DOE received five 

written comment submissions in 

response to the February 2013 NOPR, 

including comments from Lochinvar, 

AHRI, Heat Transfer Products (HTP), the 

American Public Gas Association 

(APGA), and the National Propane Gas 

Association (NPGA). These comments, 

along with DOE’s response, are 

summarized immediately below. 

In general, Lochinvar, AHRI, and HTP 

were supportive of the proposed 

amendments to the residential furnace 

and boiler test procedure as outlined in 

the February 2013 NOPR. (Lochinvar, 

No. 6 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 9 at p. 1; HTP, 

No. 10 at p. 1) However, AHRI 

recommended that DOE further simplify 

the equations by setting the input rate 

of the pilot light to zero, noting that 

continuous pilot lights are no longer 

allowed on gas boilers, and, therefore, 

there is no reason to account for them 

in the new equation. (AHRI, Public 

Meeting Trascript, p. 21) In addition, 

Lochinvar stated that 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, Appendix N contains internal 

references in need of appropriate 

renumbering. (Lochinvar, No. 8 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that Appendix N contains 

internal references in need of 

renumbering—a matter which DOE has 

addressed in today’s final rule. 

DOE considered AHRI’s point 

regarding further simplification of the 

equations, but declines to set the input 

rate of the pilot light to zero. DOE notes 

that the equations proposed for addition 

to the test procedure would be utilized 

not just for boilers, but also potentially 

for furnaces, if furnace manufacturers 

wish to avail themselves of the option 

provided in section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993. Although a standing pilot is 

uncommon on furnaces on the market 

today, this feature is not specifically 

prohibited for furnaces, leaving open 

the possibility that a furnace may have 

a standing pilot light. Additionally, DOE 

believes that the burden of setting the 

pilot energy to zero in the equation is 

insignificant and does not warrant the 

removal of this term altogether, and that 

doing so could cause confusion and 

render the equations useless for a 

product equipped with a standing pilot. 

HTP stated that the tracer gas test in 

Appendix D of ASHRAE 103–1993 used 

to determine the off-cycle airflow is 

cumbersome and difficult to 

understand. HTP recommended that the 

Department consider the presence of 

any type of damper mechanism in the 

combustion product path (upstream or 

downstream) to serve as proof that there 

is no off-cycle losses associated with the 

flow rates of gases. (HTP, No. 10 at p.2) 

DOE believes HTP’s comment 

regarding the tracer gas test may have 

merit, but notes that this comment is 

outside the scope of this particular 

rulemaking, which is meant to remedy 

an omission in the residential furnace 

and boiler test procedure impacting 

manufacturers’ ability to calculate 

AFUE of certain models. Instead, DOE 

will consider the issue of the tracer gas 

test in its proceedings for its broader test 

procedure rulemaking initiated by the 

January 2013 RFI. 

Two manufacturers requested 

clarification as to how the changes 

proposed in the NOPR would affect the 

certification of residential furnaces and 

boilers. (Lochinvar, No. 6 at p. 1; HTP, 

No. 10 at p. 1) Lochinvar requested 

clarification as to whether the new 

calculations were meant to be an 

additional option or a replacement to 

conducting the heat-up and cool downtests. (Lochinvar, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 5 at p. 17) HTP asked if 

manufacturers would be expected to use 

the same method of calculation for all 

models in a product line. (HTP, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at pp. 18–19) 

Today’s final rule modifies the 

residential furnace and boiler test 

procedure to provide a means to 

accurately calculate AFUE for two-stage 

and modulating condensing furnace and 

boiler models meeting the criteria 

outlined in section 9.10, which permit 

omission of the otherwise-required heatup and cool-down tests. As amended, 

the DOE test procedure provides two 

methods of calculation for models 

complying with the criteria outlined in 

section 9.10. Manufacturers have 

discretion to choose to rate such models 

either by using the procedures under 

section 9.10, or by using the data 

obtained in the cool-down and heat-up 

tests under sections 9.5 and 9.6, 

respectively. Manufacturers may choose 

either or both options for models within 

a single product line. 

If manufacturers have previously 

utilized the option provided in section 

9.10 for testing and rating the efficiency 

of two-stage and modulating condensing 

furnaces or boilers, manufacturers must 

either retest for efficiency without using 

section 9.10, or recalculate the 

efficiency using the new equations 

being adopted in today’s final rule. If 

retesting a given basic model using the 

methodology being adopted in this final 

rule results in a certified rating that is 

more consumptive or less efficient than 

its currently certified value, then the 

manufacturer must also recertify the 

basic model with the revised rating to 

the Department by the compliance date 

of the test procedure amendments being 

adopted in this final rule. 

The APGA and the NPGA encouraged 

DOE to include a metric that accounts 

for the full-fuel cycle as part of the 

residential furnace and boiler test 

procedure. (APGA, No. 7 at p. 1; NPGA, 

No. 8 at p.1) Once again, DOE notes that 

today’s final rule is limited in scope to 

remedying the above-discussed error in 

the DOE test procedure. However, DOE 

will consider this issue in the context of 

the broader test procedure rulemaking 

initiated by the January 2013 RFI. 

C. Final Corrective Action 

After considering comments 

presented at the March 13, 2013 public 

meeting, and additional written 

comments submitted following the 

public hearing, the Department is 

adopting the amendments proposed in 

the February 2013 NOPR (discussed in 

section III.A) with minor clarifications 

to the section numbering, as suggested 

by interested parties in comments on 

the NOPR. The amendments in today’s 

final rule include a revised method for 

calculating the AFUE for two-stage and 

modulating condensing furnaces and 

boilers. While this change may lead to 

a revised AFUE rating for certain 

residential furnaces or boilers, as 

discussed above, DOE does not believe 

that the resulting changes in AFUE 

would require amending the applicable 

energy conservation standard or affect 

compliance with the standard by the 

models at issue here. As noted, the 

previously omitted equations apply only 

to two-stage and modulating condensing 

models, which are highly efficient and, 

even using the amended equations, are 

expected to achieve ratings well above 

the minimum standards. The current 

minimum energy conservation 

standards are based on AFUE ratings 

that correspond to non-condensing 

furnaces and boilers, and those values 

would not change as a result of today’s 

amendments to remedy the omission of 

necessary equations pertaining to 

condensing models. DOE does not 

foresee that a model that would need to 

be re-rated using the equation adopted 

in today’s notice would have a resulting 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41269 

4For more information see: http:// 

www.hoovers.com/. 

AFUE below the minimum required 

efficiency. 

D. Effective and Compliance Dates 

The final rule amendments discussed 

in this rulemaking are effective on 

August 9, 2013. 

Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6293(c), 

commencing on January 6, 2014, 

manufacturers must make 

representations of energy efficiency and 

energy consumption of residential 

furnaces and boilers using this amended 

test procedure. Until that time, 

manufacturers may make such 

representations based either on the final 

amended test procedure or on the 

previous test procedure, set forth at 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N as 

contained in the 10 CFR parts 200 to 

499 edition revised as of January 1, 

2013. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6291(8), 

representation of energy consumption 

means measures of energy use 

(including for this product, active more, 

standby mode, and off mode energy 

use), annual operating cost, energy 

efficiency (including for this product, 

AFUE), or other measure of energy 

consumption. Given that the amended 

test procedure provides necessary 

equations which permit the omission of 

otherwise applicable heat-up and cooldown tests, manufacturers may wish to 

avail themselves of the opportunity for 

early compliance. 

Manufacturers must make any 

certifications of compliance with the 

existing AFUE-based energy 

conservation standards using this 

amended test procedure on January 6, 

2014. Until that time, manufacturers 

may make certifications of compliance 

based either on the final amended test 

procedure or on the previous test 

procedure, set forth at 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix N as contained in 

the 10 CFR parts 200 to 499 edition 

revised as of January 1, 2013. Again, 

given that the amended test procedure 

provides necessary equations which 

permit the omission of otherwise 

applicable heat-up and cool-down tests, 

manufacturers may wish to avail 

themselves of the opportunity for early 

compliance. 

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 regulatory action was not subject to 

review under the Executive Order by the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in OMB. 

B. Review under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such 

rule that an agency adopts as a final 

rule, unless the agency certifies that the 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. A 

regulatory flexibility analysis examines 

the impact of the rule on small entities 

and considers alternative ways of 

reducing negative effects. Also, 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 final rule under 

the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003. DOE has concluded that the rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The factual basis for this certification is 

as follows: 

For manufacturers of residential 

furnaces and boilers, the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) has set a size 

threshold, which defines those entities 

classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the 

purposes of the Act. DOE used the 

SBA’s small business size standards to 

determine whether any small entities 

would be subject to the requirements of 

the rule. 13 CFR part 121. These size 

standards and codes are established by 

the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) and are 

available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/files/ 

Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Residential 

boiler manufacturing is classified under 

NAICS 333414, ‘‘Heating equipment 

(except warm air furnaces) 

manufacturing,’’ for which the size 

threshold is 500 employees. Residential 

furnace manufacturing is classified 

under NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air-conditioning 

and warm air heating equipment and 

commercial and industrial refrigeration 

equipment manufacturing’’ for which 

the size threshold is 750 employees. 

DOE surveyed the AHRI certification 

directories for furnaces and boilers, as 

well as the SBA database and market 

research tools (e.g., Hoovers 4), to 

identify manufacturers of residential 

furnaces and boilers. DOE then 

consulted publically available data or 

contacted companies, as necessary, to 

determine if they meet the SBA’s 

definition of a ‘‘small business’’ 

manufacturer, and have their 

manufacturing facilities located within 

the United States. Based on this 

analysis, DOE identified 11 small 

businesses that manufacture residential 

furnaces, and 14 small businesses that 

manufacture residential boilers (two of 

which also manufacture residential 

furnaces), for a total of 23 small 

businesses potentially impacted by this 

rulemaking. 

DOE believes the equations being 

adopted today would lessen 

manufacturer burden in comparison to 

application of the current test 

procedure. Today’s final rule amends 

DOE’s test procedure by incorporating 

additional equations to account for the 

use of section 9.10 of ASHRAE 103– 

1993 (the relevant industry standard 

incorporated by reference) for two-stage 

and modulating condensing furnaces 

and boilers. Section 9.10 permits a 

manufacturer of condensing furnaces 

and boilers the option to omit the 

specified heat-up and cool-down tests if 

the model has no measurable airflow 

through the combustion chamber and 

heat exchanger during the burner off 

period and has post-purge period(s) of 

less than 5 seconds. However, under the 

DOE test procedure, the equations 

needed to use section 9.10 did not exist 

for two-stage and modulating 

condensing models. As a result, the only 

available method to properly rate the 

performance of two-stage and 

modulating condensing furnaces and 

boilers has been conducting the heat-up 

and cool-down tests. Because section 

9.10 previously lacked the requisite 

equations, manufacturers who used that 

option to rate the AFUE of their twostage and modulating condensing 

furnace and boiler models will need to 

re-rate their models using either today’s 

new equations or the results of heat-up 

and cool-down tests. 

The estimated costs of re-rating using 

the new equations (for manufacturers 

who had incorrectly applied the test 

procedure) is discussed below, along 

with the estimated costs of conducting 

the heat-up and cool-down tests. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41270 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE 

stated that manufacturers are likely to 

choose one of two approaches to use the 

new equations to recalculate the 

efficiency of two-stage and modulating 

condensing models for which section 

9.10 has been employed: (1) 

Manufacturers might recalculate the 

efficiency for each model individually 

by doing the calculations manually; or 

(2) manufacturers might update the 

AFUE calculation computer program to 

account for the new equations. 78 FR 

7681, 7690 (Feb. 4, 2013). 

In the NOPR, DOE estimated that 

recalculating the AFUE manually using 

the new equation would take between 

30 minutes and 1 hour per basic model. 

At an hourly rate of $60 for a test lab 

technician, DOE estimated that each 

model that is re-rated in this manner 

would cost approximately $30 to $60. 

Id. 

Alternatively, an individual 

manufacturer may decide to reprogram 

its software for calculating AFUE to 

account for the new equation. In the 

NOPR, DOE estimated that a 

programmer would need between 16 

and 40 hours to rewrite the program 

code to account for this new equation. 

At an hourly rate of $80 for a 

programmer, the resulting cost would be 

a one-time expenditure of $1280 to 

$3200 to update the automatic AFUE 

calculation program. Id. HTP stated a 

concern that if each manufacturer is 

required to modify the AFUE 

calculation software to account for these 

corrections, unintended variation may 

be introduced to the market place. HTP 

commented that they expect the 

modification of the software to cost 

approximately $5,000 for each 

manufacturer. (HTP, No. 10 at p. 2) 

DOE believes that the equations being 

adopted in today’s NOPR are clear and 

unambiguous enough that they could be 

implemented in the program in a 

consistent manner and does not agree 

that unintended variation from 

manufacturer to manufacturer would be 

a major concern. Further, in the NOPR, 

DOE noted that given the role AHRI has 

traditionally played and the potential 

for cost savings for AHRI members, 

AHRI may decide to reprogram its 

software. In this case, the software 

would be uniform for AHRI members, 

and the effort required to recalculate 

AFUE for individual manufacturers, 

would be much less than the cost AHRI 

would incur to modify the program. 78 

FR 7681, 7690 (Feb. 4, 2013). Regarding 

HTP’s assessment of the cost to 

reprogram the relevant software, DOE 

believes that $5,000 is not unreasonable 

as a rough estimate. However, DOE’s 

estimate in the NOPR was more refined, 

being based on actual quotes obtained 

from computer programmers familiar 

with the AFUE calculation program that 

is currently used by industry. DOE’s 

estimates of the programming time 

needed to add the two equations were 

conservatively based on actual 

information received from programmers. 

HTP did not provide any data in the 

form of the hourly cost of a programmer 

or the time required that would lead 

DOE to change its estimates. Thus, DOE 

believes that the total cost to reprogram 

the current industry software would fall 

in the range of $1280 to $3200, which 

is based on a cost of $80 per hour for 

a programmer and 16 to 40 hours of 

programming time. Further, DOE notes 

that even at $5,000, the cost would be 

small compared to the overall cost of 

manufacturing, testing, and certifying 

residential furnace and boiler products, 

making the impact of this option 

minimal for manufacturers. As noted in 

the February 2013 NOPR, if these costs 

were spread over the cost of each model 

re-certified, the cost on a per-model 

basis would be much lower. 

At the time of this publication, the 

AHRI certification directories for 

residential furnaces and boilers contain 

a combined total of approximately 2000 

active condensing models for which 

recalculation could potentially be 

required, although only a fraction of the 

total condensing models would be twostage and modulating products which 

might need to be re-rated using the new 

equations. Further, AHRI required 

member manufacturers of condensing 

two-stage or condensing modulating 

boilers to either: (1) Re-rate their 

products at 90 percent AFUE; (2) 

discontinue the model; or (3) 

substantiate the model’s efficiency 

rating by providing data from the heatup and cool-down tests. (AHRI, No. 1 at 

p. 2) DOE examined the number of 

models in the AHRI certified directory 

for boilers that are rated at 90-percent 

AFUE (the majority of which are likely 

to be re-rated models that used option 

9.10) and found that there are 210 

models rated at 90-percent AFUE. If all 

of these models were to be re-rated 

through the use of the updated 

computer program, the per-model cost 

would be $6 to $15. 

In the February 2013 NOPR, DOE 

estimated that conducting the heat-up 

and cool-down tests would require 2 

hours combined for two-stage and 

modulating condensing products. 78 FR 

7681, 7690 (Feb. 4, 2013). DOE 

estimated that at $60 per hour for a lab 

technician, the cost to perform the heatup and cool-down tests is 

approximately $120 per model. 

During the public meeting, Lochinvar 

commented that the February 2013 

NOPR only accounted for the cost to 

perform the heat-up and cool-down 

tests. However, according to Lochinvar, 

manufacturers do not have the option of 

conducting the heat-up and cool-down 

test on one unit of a particular model 

and incorporating that data along with 

the steady-state test data from another 

unit of the same model to obtain an 

AFUE rating. As a result, Lochinvar 

contended that if a manufacturer had 

incorrectly rated their equipment under 

the existing test procedure and wished 

to re-rate the equipment using the heatup and cool-down tests rather than 

using the section 9.10 method, the 

entire test would need to be performed 

again on that product or that family of 

products. Lochinvar stated that this 

would mean that the test burden would 

be at least 10 times the cost DOE listed 

in the February 2013 NOPR. (Lochinvar, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 5 at p. 

24) HTP stated that impact for small 

businesses would be a significantly 

higher proportional cost relative to their 

revenue than it would be for large 

manufacturers. HTP estimated that the 

cost of addressing this issue, including 

re-rating and expenditure of company 

time, has cost HTP between $250,000 

and $300,000. (HTP, No. 10 at p. 2) 

DOE agrees that manufacturers 

seeking to re-rate their units by 

conducting the heat-up and cool-down 

tests may also need to conduct the 

steady-state portion of the test to obtain 

an accurate efficiency rating. DOE 

estimates that the cost of conducting the 

entire test method at a test lab would 

cost manufacturers approximately 

$1600 per unit. 

The costs to manufacturers of 

utilizing the equations being adopted in 

today’s final rule is significantly lower 

than the cost of re-rating the models by 

performing the heat-up and cool-down 

tests, regardless of whether 

manufacturers choose to recalculate the 

efficiencies by hand or to update the 

automatic AFUE calculation program. 

Thus, the adoption of these equations 

would be likely to significantly reduce 

test burden in comparison to the current 

version of the test procedure that does 

not include these equations and requires 

the heat-up and cool-down test data in 

order to accurately calculate AFUE. 

Further, DOE believes the costs 

discussed above to recalculate efficiency 

using the new equations are small 

relative to the overall cost of 

manufacturing, testing, and certifying 

residential furnace and boiler products. 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

certifies that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41271 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, DOE did not prepare a final 

regulatory flexibility analysis for the 

final rule. DOE has transmitted its 

certification and a supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Thus, DOE 

reaffirms and certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of residential furnaces 

and boilers must certify to DOE that 

their products comply with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their products 

according to the DOE test procedures for 

residential furnaces and boilers, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures on the date that 

compliance is required. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including residential furnaces and 

boilers. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 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. 

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 amends its test 

procedure for residential furnaces and 

boilers. 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 10, 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 has 

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. Regarding the 

review required by section 3(a), 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 

‘‘significant intergovernmental 

mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan 

for giving notice and opportunity for 

timely input to potentially affected 

small governments before establishing 

any requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them. On 

March 18, 1997, DOE published a 

statement of policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. (This policy is 

also available at http://energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel.) DOE examined 

today’s final rule according to UMRA 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
41272 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. Accordingly, no further 

assessment or analysis is required under 

UMRA. 

H. Review under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 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. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), 

DOE has determined 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 information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). 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 promulgates 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 to amend 

the test procedure for measuring the 

energy efficiency of residential furnaces 

and boilers is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order. 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 for this 

rulemaking. 

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 et seq.), DOE must 

comply with all laws applicable to the 

former Federal Energy Administration, 

including section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

(Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by the 

Federal Energy Administration 

Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95– 

70). (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 modifications to the test 

procedures addressed by this action do 

not incorporate by reference any testing 

methods that are not currently 

incorporated in the DOE test procedure 

for residential furnaces and boilers. 

DOE’s final rule continues to use 

ASHRAE 103–1993 (Method of Testing 

for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 

Residential Central Furnaces and 

Boilers) as the basis for the DOE test 

procedure, while adding two necessary 

equations. 

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). 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 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 June 26, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 

Chapter II, subchapter D of title 10, 

Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2461 note. 

■ 2. Appendix N to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising sections 10.0 and 10.1; 

■ b. Redesignating sections 10.2, 10.2.1, 

10.2.1.1, 10.2.1.2, 10.2.1.3, 10.2.1.4, 

10.2.2, 10.2.3, 10.3, 10.5.1, 10.5.3, 

10.6.1, 10.6.2, 10.6.3, 10.7.1, and 10.9 as 

sections 10.4, 10.4.1, 10.4.1.1, 10.4.1.2, 

10.4.1.3, 10.4.1.4, 10.4.2, 10.4.3, 10.5, 

10.7.1, 10.7.3, 10.8.1, 10.8.2, 10.8.3, 

10.9.1, and 10.11; and 

■ d. Adding sections 10.2 and 10.3. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Furnaces and 

Boilers 

* * * * * 

10.0 Calculation of derived results from 

test measurements. Calculations shall be as 

specified in section 11 of ANSI/ASHRAE 

103–1993(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3) and the October 24, 1996, Errata 

Sheet for ASHRAE 103–1993, except for 

sections 11.5.11.1, 11.5.11.2, and appendices 

B and C; and as specified in sections 10.1 

through 10.10 and Figure 1 of this appendix. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 41273 

10.1 Annual fuel utilization efficiency. 

The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) 

is as defined in sections 11.2.12 (noncondensing systems), 11.3.12 (condensing 

systems), 11.4.12 (non-condensing 

modulating systems), and 11.5.12 

(condensing modulating systems) of ANSI/ 

ASHRAE 103–1993 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3), except for the 

definition for the term EffyHS in the defining 

equation for AFUE. EffyHS is defined as: 

EffyHS = heating seasonal efficiency as 

defined in sections 11.2.11 (noncondensing systems), 11.3.11 

(condensing systems), 11.4.11 (noncondensing modulating systems), and 

11.5.11 (condensing modulating systems) 

of ANSI/ASHRAE 103–1993, except that 

for condensing modulating systems 

sections 11.5.11.1 and 11.5.11.2 are 

replaced by sections 10.2 and 10.3 of this 

appendix. EffyHS is based on the 

assumptions that all weatherized warm 

air furnaces or boilers are located 

outdoors, that warm air furnaces that are 

not weatherized are installed as isolated 

combustion systems, and that boilers 

that are not weatherized are installed 

indoors. 

10.2 Part-Load Efficiency at Reduced Fuel 

Input Rate. Calculate the part-load efficiency 

at the reduced fuel input rate, EffyU,R, for 

condensing furnaces and boilers equipped 

with either step modulating or two-stage 

controls, expressed as a percent and defined 

as: 

If the option in section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3) is employed: 

Where: 

LL,A = value as defined in section 11.2.7 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 

LG = value as defined in section 11.3.11.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LC = value as defined in section 11.3.11.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LJ = value as defined in section 11.4.8.1.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

tON = value as defined in section 11.4.9.11 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, 

QP = pilot flame fuel input rate determined 

in accordance with section 9.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 in Btu/h 

QIN = value as defined in section 11.4.8.1.1 

of ASHRAE 103–1993, 

tOFF = value as defined in section 11.4.9.12 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LS,ON = value as defined in section 11.4.10.5 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LS,OFF = value as defined in section 11.4.10.6 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LI,ON = value as defined in section 11.4.10.7 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

LI,OFF = value as defined in section 11.4.10.8 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

CJ = jacket loss factor and equal to: 

= 0.0 for furnaces or boilers intended to be 

installed indoors 

= 1.7 for furnaces intended to be installed 

as isolated combustion systems 

= 2.4 for boilers (other than finned-tube 

boilers) intended to be installed as 

isolated combustion systems 

= 3.3 for furnaces intended to be installed 

outdoors 

= 4.7 for boilers (other than finned-tube 

boilers) intended to be installed outdoors 

= 1.0 for finned-tube boilers intended to be 

installed outdoors 

= 0.5 for finned-tube boilers intended to be 

installed as isolated combustion systems 

LS,SS = value as defined in section 11.5.6 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate, 

CS = value as defined in section 11.5.10.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at reduced input 

rate. 

10.3 Part-Load Efficiency at Maximum 

Fuel Input Rate. Calculate the part-load 

efficiency at maximum fuel input rate, 

EffyU,H, for condensing furnaces and boilers 

equipped with two-stage controls, expressed 

as a percent and defined as: 

If the option in section 9.10 of ASHRAE 

103–1993 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3) is employed: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULESER10JY13.002</GPH> ER10JY13.003</GPH> ER10JY13.004</GPH> ER10JY13.005</GPH>
41274 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Where: 

LL,A = value as defined in section 11.2.7 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, 

LG = value as defined in section 11.3.11.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LC = value as defined in section 11.3.11.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LJ = value as defined in section 11.4.8.1.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

tON = value as defined in section 11.4.9.11 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, 

QP = pilot flame fuel input rate determined 

in accordance with section 9.2 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 in Btu/h, 

QIN = value as defined in section 11.4.8.1.1 

of ASHRAE 103–1993, 

tOFF = value as defined in section 11.4.9.12 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LS,ON = value as defined in section 11.4.10.5 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LS,OFF = value as defined in section 11.4.10.6 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LI,ON = value as defined in section 11.4.10.7 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

LI,OFF = value as defined in section 11.4.10.8 

of ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

CJ = value as defined in section 10.2 of this 

appendix, 

LS,SS = value as defined in section 11.5.6 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate, 

CS = value as defined in section 11.5.10.1 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993 at maximum input 

rate. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–16413 Filed 7–9–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2012–1067; Directorate 

Identifier 2011–NM–231–AD; Amendment 

39–17444; AD 2013–09–03] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault 

Aviation Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

DASSAULT AVIATION Model 

FALCON 2000, FALCON 2000EX, 

MYSTERE–FALCON 900, and FALCON 

900EX airplanes; and all Model 

MYSTERE–FALCON 50 airplanes. This 

AD was prompted by reports that 

collapse of the main landing gear (MLG) 

could cause wing tank structure failure, 

which could result in fuel spillage and 

consequent fire hazard. This AD 

requires modification of the wing fuel 

tanks in the area of the wheel well. We 

are issuing this AD to prevent fuel 

spillage in the event of a MLG collapse, 

and consequent fire hazard. 

DATES: This AD becomes effective 

August 14, 2013. 

The Director of the Federal Register 

approved the incorporation by reference 

of certain publications listed in this AD 

as of August 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in person at the 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 

1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 

98057–3356; telephone (425) 227–1137; 

fax (425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Discussion 

We issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR 

part 39 to include an AD that would 

apply to the specified products. That 

NPRM was published in the Federal 

Register on October 10, 2012 (77 FR 

61539). That NPRM proposed to correct 

an unsafe condition for the specified 

products. The Mandatory Continuing 

Airworthiness Information (MCAI) 

states: 

In service experience has shown that, in 

case of main landing gear collapse due to 

overloads during take off or landing (e.g., 

during high-speed runway excursions), the 

wing tank structure can fail, leading to fuel 

spillage. . . . 

This condition, if not corrected, could 

result, in case of main landing gear collapse, 

in a fuel spillage which may constitute a fire 

hazard. 

To address this unsafe condition, Dassault 

Aviation have developed a structural 

modification of the wing fuel tanks in the 

area of the wheel well which introduces a 

dry bay by adding a sealed boundary in front 

of the rear spar between ribs 4 and 5. 

For the reasons described above, this 

[European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)] 

AD [2011–0193, dated October 5, 2011] 

requires accomplishment of the abovementioned modification for the Right Hand 

(RH) and Left Hand (LH) wing fuel tanks. 

You may obtain further information by 

examining the MCAI in the AD docket. 

Comments 

We gave the public the opportunity to 

participate in developing this AD. We 

considered the comments received. 

Request for Updated Service 

Information 

Dassault Aviation requested that we 

revise the NPRM (77 FR 61539, October 

10, 2012) to reference Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin F900–388, 

Revision 3, dated October 19, 2011. (We 

referred to Dassault Mandatory Service 

Bulletin F900–388, Revision 2, dated 

March 10, 2010, as the appropriate 

source of service information for certain 

airplanes for accomplishing the 

modification specified in paragraph (g) 

of the NPRM.) 

We agree. Dassault Mandatory Service 

Bulletin F900–388, Revision 3, dated 

October 19, 2011, clarifies the placard 

instructions for certain airplanes. We 

have updated the reference in paragraph 

(g)(3) of this AD to Dassault Mandatory 

Service Bulletin F900–388, Revision 3, 

dated October 19, 2011. We have also 

added paragraph (h)(3)(iii) to this AD to 

allow credit for actions done before the 

effective date of this AD using Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin F900–388, 

Revision 2, dated March 10, 2010. 

Request for Clarification of Credit 

Service Bulletin 

Tidewater Inc. stated it has already 

complied with Dassault Mandatory 

Service Bulletin F2000EX–171, dated 

July 6, 2009, and requested we take that 

into consideration. The commenter 

noted that Dassault Mandatory Service 

Bulletin F2000EX–171, Revision 3, 

dated March 10, 2010, states that 

Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin 

F2000EX–171, Revision 1, dated 

October 22, 2009; Revision 2, dated 

February 15, 2010; and Revision 3, 

dated March 10, 2010; are not 

applicable to aircraft already modified 

as specified in the original service 

bulletin. 

We agree to clarify. Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX– 

171, Revision 3, dated March 10, 2010, 

does specifically state that Revision 3 is 

‘‘not applicable to aircraft already 

changed per the original issue or 

revision 1 or revision 2.’’ Also, as 

proposed in the NPRM (77 FR 61539, 

October 10, 2012), paragraph (h) of this 

AD states that credit is allowed for 

actions done before the effective date of 

this AD using certain service 

information, including Dassault 

Mandatory Service Bulletin F2000EX– 

171, dated July 6, 2009; Revision 1, 

dated October 22, 2009; and Revision 2, 

dated February 15, 2010; as specified in 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES