This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

19606 

Vol. 78, No. 63 

Tuesday, April 2, 2013 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 

[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010] 

RIN 1904–AC21 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Test Procedures 

for Residential Furnace Fans 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) proposes to establish test 

procedures for electrically-powered 

devices used in residential heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC) products to circulate air 

through ductwork, hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘furnace fans.’’ DOE proposes a test 

procedure that would be applicable to 

furnace fans that are used in 

weatherized and non-weatherized gas, 

oil and electric furnaces and modular 

blowers, even though DOE interprets its 

authority as encompassing more than 

just circulation fans used in furnaces. 

This notice proposes to establish a test 

method for measuring the electrical 

consumption of the furnace fans used in 

these products. Concurrently, DOE is 

undertaking an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking to address the 

electrical energy used by these products 

for circulating air. Once these energy 

conservation standards are promulgated, 

the adopted test procedures would be 

used to determine compliance with the 

standards. DOE is also requesting 

written comments on issues presented 

in this test procedure rulemaking. DOE 

does not plan to hold a public meeting 

to discuss the modified proposals of this 

supplemental notice. 

DATES: Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later 

than May 2, 2013. For details, see 

section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this 

SNOPR. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the SNOPR on Test 

Procedures for Residential Furnace 

Fans, and provide docket number 

EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010 and/or 

regulatory information number (RIN) 

number 1904–AC21. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: FurnFans-2010-TP0010@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010 and 

RIN 1904–AC21 in the subject line of 

the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process. 

Docket: The docket 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://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

product.aspx/productid/42. This Web 

page contains a link to the docket for 

this notice 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. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for information 

on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

residential furnace fans rulemaking 

electronic mailbox, Email: 

Residential_furnace_fans@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. 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. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Authority and Background 

II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

III. SNOPR Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

B. AHRI Test Method 

1. Calculating Maximum Airflow 

2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure 

Measurements 

3. Temperature Rise Measurements 

C. Definitions 

D. Sampling Plans 

E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

F. Reference System Product Types 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19607 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this rulemaking refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–140. 

3 DOE interprets its authority as encompassing 

more than just circulation fans used in residential 

furnaces. At the present time, however, DOE is only 

proposing a test procedure that would cover those 

fans that are used in weatherized and nonweatherized gas, oil, and electric furnaces, and 

modular blowers. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

1. Airflow Equation 

2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated 

Heating Airflow-Control Setting To 

Calculate Maximum Airflow 

3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting To 

Measure Temperature Rise 

4. Elevation Impacts 

5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications 

6. Optional Return Air Duct 

7. ASHRAE 37–2005 External Static 

Pressure Measurement Provisions 

8. Temperature Measurement Accuracy 

Requirement 

9. Minimum Temperature Rise 

10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria 

11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature 

Gradients 

12. Sampling Plan Criteria 

VI. 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) sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency and 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products Other 

Than Automobiles, a program covering 

most major household appliances.2

These covered appliances 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.3 (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 September 30, 

2013 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 

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 initiated a 

test procedure rulemaking for furnace 

fans simultaneously to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking for 

furnace fans. DOE intends for the test 

procedure to include an energy 

consumption metric and the methods 

necessary to measure the energy 

performance of the covered products. 

The proposed energy consumption 

metric does not account for the 

electrical energy consumption in 

standby mode and off mode because 

consumption in those modes is already 

accounted for in the DOE rulemakings 

for furnaces and central air conditioners 

(CAC) and heat pumps. 77 FR 76831, 

December 31, 2012; 76 FR 65616 (Oct. 

24, 2011). Manufacturers would be 

required to use the proposed energy 

consumption metric, sampling plans, 

and testing methods developed during 

this rulemaking to verify compliance 

with the new energy conservation 

standards when they take effect and for 

making representations about 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 NOPR, DOE 

proposed a rating metric, fan efficiency 

rating (FER) and proposed methods to 

measure the performance of covered 

products 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 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19608 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

4Manufactured home external static pressure is 

much smaller because there is no return air 

ductwork in manufactured homes. Also, the United 

States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) requirements for manufactured 

homes stipulate that the ductwork for cooling 

should be set at 0.3 in. w.c. 

test method that it argues 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; 

Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) 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 section III.B of this 

notice. 

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) 

may provide accurate and repeatable 

FER values at a significantly reduced 

burden to manufacturers. In this 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking (SNOPR), DOE proposes to 

adopt a modified version of the test 

method presented by AHRI as the 

furnace fan test procedure. DOE also 

explains the changes reflected in the test 

procedure proposed herein compared to 

the test procedure proposed in the 

NOPR. This notice also provides 

interested parties with an opportunity to 

comment on the revised proposed test 

method. 

In this SNOPR, DOE addresses only 

the changes to the test procedure it 

proposed in the NOPR and those 

comments received on the NOPR that 

are relevant to the proposed changes. 

All other comments received on the test 

procedure NOPR will be addressed in 

the test procedure final rule. 

II. Summary of the Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to 

establish these test procedures in order 

to allow for the development of energy 

conservation standards to address the 

electrical consumption of the products 

covered under this rulemaking. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) The proposed test 

procedure would be applicable to 

electrically-powered devices used in 

central HVAC systems for the purposes 

of circulating air through ductwork 

(referred to collectively as furnace fans 

in this rulemaking). Furnace fans 

covered in the scope of the proposed 

test procedure include circulation fans 

used in weatherized and nonweatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, 

electric furnaces, and modular blowers. 

DOE’s proposed definition of modular 

blowers is provided in section III.C. The 

proposed test procedure would not be 

applicable to any non-ducted products, 

such as whole-house ventilation 

systems without ductwork, central airconditioning (CAC) condensing unit 

fans, room fans, and furnace draft 

inducer fans. 

DOE proposes to adopt a modified 

version of the alternative test method 

recommended by AHRI and other 

furnace fan manufacturers to rate the 

electrical consumption of furnace fans. 

The AHRI-proposed method provides a 

framework for accurate and repeatable 

determinations of FER that is 

comparable to the test method 

previously proposed by DOE, but at a 

significantly reduced test burden. In 

general, the AHRI proposal reduces the 

test burden because it: (1) Does not 

require airflow to be measured directly; 

(2) avoids the need to make multiple 

determinations in each airflow-control 

setting because outlet restrictions to 

achieve the specified reference system 

external static pressure (ESP) would be 

set in the maximum airflow-control 

setting and maintained for 

measurements in subsequent airflowcontrol settings; and (3) can be 

conducted using the test set up 

currently required to rate furnace AFUE 

for compliance with furnace standards. 

DOE proposes to align the proposed 

furnace fan test procedure with the DOE 

test procedure for furnaces by 

incorporating by reference specific 

provisions from an industry standard 

incorporated by reference in its 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 

Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103). 

DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference the definitions, test setup and 

equipment, and procedures for 

measuring steady state combustion 

efficiency provisions of the 2007 version 

of ASHRAE 103. In addition to these 

provisions, DOE proposes additional 

provisions for apparatuses and 

procedures for measuring throughput 

temperature, external static pressure, 

and furnace fan electrical input power. 

DOE also proposes calculations to 

derive FER based on the results of 

testing for each basic model. 

DOE proposes to use the same 

definition for the fan efficiency rating 

(FER) metric as proposed in the NOPR, 

but to modify the title and calculation. 

In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define 

FER as 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. DOE 

is aware that referring to the FER rating 

metric as the ‘‘fan efficiency rating,’’ as 

was done in the NOPR, is a misnomer 

because it is not a function of the output 

energy of the furnace fan, which is 

typical of an efficiency metric. FER is a 

function of fan energy consumption and 

as a result, DOE believes it is more 

appropriately categorized as an energy 

consumption metric. Thus DOE 

proposes to refer to FER as the ‘‘fan 

energy rating.’’ The estimated annual 

electrical energy consumption, as 

proposed, is a weighted average of the 

furnace fan electrical input power (in 

Watts) measured separately for multiple 

airflow-control settings at different 

external static pressures (ESPs). These 

ESPs are determined by a reference 

system that represents national average 

ductwork system characteristics. Table 

II.1 includes the proposed reference 

system ESP values by installation type. 

The reference system ESP values 

proposed in the NOPR included a value 

for ‘‘heating-only’’ installation types. 

Interested parties recommended that 

DOE eliminate this installation type 

because they are unaware of products 

that could be categorized as such. DOE 

agrees with interested parties and 

proposes to eliminate the heating-only 

designation for this SNOPR. Section 

III.F provides a detailed discussion of 

this issue. 

TABLE II.1—PROPOSED REFERENCE

SYSTEM ESP VALUES BY FURNACE

FAN INSTALLATION TYPE

Installation type 

Weighted 

average ESP 

(in. w.c.) 

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

Units designed to be paired 

with an evaporator coil ...... 0.65 

Units installed in a Manufactured homes 4 .................... 0.30 

The proposed rated airflow-control 

settings correspond to operation in 

cooling mode (which DOE finds is 

predominantly associated with the 

maximum airflow-control setting), 

heating mode, and constant-circulation 

mode. Table II.2 illustrates the airflowVerDate Mar<15>2010 18:56 Apr 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19609 

control settings that would be rated for 

various product types. The NOPR 

included proposed rated airflow control 

settings for heating-only installations. 

As discussed above, DOE proposes to 

eliminate the heating-only designation 

for the reasons outlined in section III.F. 

TABLE II.2—PROPOSED RATED AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTINGS BY PRODUCT TYPE

Product type Rated airflow-control setting 1 Rated airflow-control setting 2 Rated 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. 

As shown in Table II.2., for products 

with single-stage heating, the three 

proposed rating airflow-control settings 

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 proposed rating 

airflow-control settings are the default 

constant-circulation setting, the default 

low heating setting, and the absolute 

maximum setting. The absolute lowest 

default airflow-control setting is used to 

represent constant circulation if a 

default constant-circulation setting is 

not specified. DOE’s proposes to define 

‘‘default airflow-control settings’’ as the 

airflow-control settings specified for 

installed use 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 airflow controlsetting to ensure that the product in 

which the furnace fan is integrated 

operates safely. Manufacturer 

installation guides also provide detailed 

instructions regarding compatible 

thermostats and how to wire them to 

achieve the specified default settings. 

DOE proposes to weight the Watt 

measurements using designated annual 

operating hours for each function (i.e., 

cooling, heating, and constant 

circulation) that are intended to 

represent national average operation. 

Table II.3 shows the proposed estimated 

national average operating hours for 

each function to be used to calculate 

FER, which are the same as those 

proposed in the NOPR. 

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 

The specified operating hours for the 

heating mode for multi-stage heating or 

modulating heating products are 

divided by the heat 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 reduced heat output capacity to 

maximum heat output capacity. In the 

NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate 

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). 77 FR at 28701 (May 15, 2012). 

In this SNOPR, DOE proposes to 

incorporate HCR in the numerator, and 

eliminate it from the denominator in the 

revised proposed FER equation. DOE 

finds that this modification results in 

FER values that more accurately reflect 

the relative efficiency of multi-stage and 

modulating units compared to singlestage units. The revised proposed FER 

equation is: 

III. SNOPR Discussion 

A. Scope of Coverage 

EPCA grants DOE authority to 

‘‘consider and prescribe energy 

conservation standards or energy use 

standards for electricity used for 

purposes of circulating air through 

ductwork.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) In 

the June 2010 Framework Document, 

DOE tentatively interpreted this EPCA 

language to allow DOE to cover any 

electrically-powered device used in a 

central HVAC system for the purpose of 

circulating air through ductwork. DOE 

sought comment on including the air 

circulation fans used in gas furnaces, oil 

furnaces, electric furnaces, CAC air 

handlers, and modular blowers in the 

scope of coverage. DOE also sought 

comment on excluding draft inducer 

fans, exhaust fans, heat recovery 

ventilators (HRV), and energy recovery 

ventilators (ERV) from the scope of 

coverage. DOE also requested comment 

on whether other products, such as 

small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) and 

through-the-wall systems should be 

included in the scope of coverage of this 

rulemaking. 

In the test procedure NOPR, DOE 

proposed a scope of applicability for the 

test procedure that was sufficiently 

broad to cover the products under 

consideration for the scope of coverage 

for the energy conservation standards. 

The NOPR test procedure’s proposed 

scope of applicability included singlephase, 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. These heating and cooling capacity 

limits are identical to those in the DOE 

definitions for residential ‘‘furnace’’ and 

‘‘central air conditioner’’ (10 CFR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.018</GPH> 
19610 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

430.2), and the airflow typically 

required to provide these levels of 

heating and cooling. DOE proposed to 

exclude from the scope of applicability 

of the test procedure any non-ducted 

products such as whole-house 

ventilation systems without ductwork, 

CAC condensing unit fans, room fans, 

and furnace draft inducer fans because 

these products do not circulate air 

through ductwork. 

In their comments on the test 

procedure NOPR, many interested 

parties commented that the scope of 

coverage should be limited to 

circulation fans used in residential 

furnaces. AHRI stated its view that DOE 

had misinterpreted the relevant 

provision of EPCA. According to AHRI, 

the heading of 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) 

entitled, ‘‘standards for furnaces and 

boilers’’ and subsections 1 through 4 

under that section apply only to 

residential furnaces and boilers, as 

defined by EPCA. 10 CFR 430.2 AHRI 

suggested that this clear, consistent 

format strongly indicates that the scope 

of this requirement includes only the 

motor and blower combinations 

provided in residential warm air 

furnaces. AHRI added that there is 

nothing within section 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) 

that suggests that the provisions of that 

section apply to any other products that 

may be used to heat a residence. AHRI 

contended that if the intent of this 

change had been to include circulation 

fans used in residential air conditioners 

and heat pumps, then Congress would 

have added a corresponding paragraph 

to 42 U S C. 6295(d)—the section 

covering central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 16 at pp. 1–2.) 

First Company (‘‘First Co.’’), Morrison, 

and Lennox echoed AHRI’s arguments. 

(First Co., No. 9 at p. 1; Morrison, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 26; 

Lennox, No. 12 at p. 2.) 

First Co. added that, although 

subsection (f)(4)(D) refers in more 

general terms to ‘‘standards for 

electricity used for purposes of 

circulating air through ductwork,’’ it is 

a well-established rule of statutory 

construction that, ‘‘[w]here general 

words follow specific words in a 

statutory enumeration, the general 

words are construed to embrace only 

objects similar in nature to those objects 

enumerated by the preceding specific 

words.’’ Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. 

Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114–15, 121 S.Ct. 

1302, 1308–09 (2001) (applying the 

statutory canon of ejusdem generis); Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Inst. v. 

Energy Res. Conservation and Dev. 

Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492,501 (9th Cir. 

2005) (applying same statutory canon to 

interpretation of EPCA). According to 

First Co., the general language of 

subsection (f)(4)(D) is preceded in 

subsections (A), (B), and (C) by specific 

and repeated references to standards for 

furnaces. First Co. argues that applying 

the rules of statutory construction, the 

provisions of subsection (f)(4)(D) must 

be interpreted to apply to furnaces, and 

not to a broader category of products. 

(First Co., No. 10 at p. 1) DOE disagrees 

with this reading of the cases cited 

above, as the Supreme Court was in fact 

considering a ‘‘residual phrase’’ within 

the same sentence, finding it to be 

controlled by the specificity of the 

words that preceded it. With regard to 

the case of separate statutory provisions, 

the Supreme Court’s opinion is silent. 

DOE provides a general response to the 

issue of authority under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(4)(D) later in this section. 

AHRI, First Co., Ingersoll Rand, 

Morrison, Mortex Products, Inc., 

Goodman, and Lennox commented that 

CAC and heat pump products like splitsystem packaged central air 

conditioners and heat pump air 

handlers should be excluded because 

the electrical consumption of their 

circulation fans is already addressed in 

the seasonal energy efficiency ratio 

(SEER) and heating seasonal 

performance factor (HSPF) descriptors. 

(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 

23 at p. 74; First Co., No. 10 at p. 2; 

Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 98; Morrison, 

No. 21 at p. 2; Mortex, No. 18 at p. 1; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 

12 at p. 2). First Co. points out that in 

the NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt 

additional test procedure provisions for 

standby and off mode electrical energy 

consumption of furnace fans used in 

furnaces and CAC and heat pumps 

given that consumption in these modes 

either has been or is in the process of 

being fully addressed in other 

rulemakings. Applying the same 

principle, First Co. states that there is no 

need for DOE to adopt additional test 

procedures for furnace fans in central 

air conditioners in this rulemaking 

because their energy usage is addressed 

by the SEER descriptor under the 

standard. 

First Co. also commented that EPCA 

allows for the development of more than 

one standard for products that serve 

more than one major function, but limits 

DOE’s authority to setting one standard 

for each major function. 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(5) According to First Co., to the 

extent that DOE has the authority to 

regulate the energy efficiency of 

‘‘furnace fans,’’ it does not have 

authority to require manufacturers of 

central air conditioners to meet a 

separate standard for a component of 

the system already tested and rated 

under the SEER standard. (First Co., No. 

10 at p.2.) Ingersoll Rand echoed First 

Co.’s sentiments, stating that further 

testing of air handlers would be 

redundant and add regulatory burden 

with no benefit because all air handlers 

are currently tested as part of a CAC or 

HP system with the fan power included 

in the SEER, EER, and HSPF 

descriptors. Ingersoll Rand added that 

consumer confusion is a likely 

unintended consequence. (Ingersoll 

Rand, No. 14 at p. 2.) Goodman 

submitted that cooling hours and energy 

consumption should be removed from 

the metric for all covered products to 

eliminate duplicate regulations. 

(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.) 

AHRI, Ingersoll Rand, and Morrison 

commented that modular blowers and 

hydronic air handlers should not be 

covered in this test procedure because 

they are beyond the authority provided 

by EPCA and are not currently regulated 

product classes. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2; 

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

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 

88.) 

Several interested parties commented 

that the test procedure should address 

operation of furnace fans as installed in 

the products in which they are sold 

rather than separately. DOE 

acknowledges that its NOPR may not 

have been clear in indicating that the 

test procedure proposal would apply to 

operation of fans while installed in 

these products. Consequently, some 

interested parties recommend that DOE 

consider the air handler (i.e. the entire 

HVAC product) and not just the furnace 

fan by testing furnace fans in-situ. The 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) commented 

that limiting the scope of the rule to a 

narrow box around the sheet metal, fan 

motor, impeller and shroud is 

inappropriate because a large fraction of 

the electricity consumption of these 

devices has to do with the aerodynamics 

of the air handler cabinet, as shown in 

previous DOE work conducted by Ian 

Walker of Lawrence Berkley National 

Lab (LBNL). (ACEEE, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 16.) Adjuvant 

Consulting (‘‘Adjuvant’’), the Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

(NPCC), and the Northwest Energy 

Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) agree with 

ACEEE that air handlers should be the 

covered product in this rulemaking. 

(Adjuvant, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23 at pp. 29, 30; NPCC/NEEA, No. 

22 at p. 3.) As mentioned above, the test 

procedure proposed in the NOPR and 

the test procedure proposed herein 

would apply to the energy use for air 

circulation of the furnace fan as factoryVerDate Mar<15>2010 17:24 Apr 01, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM 02APP1

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19611 

5Please refer to Chapter 2 of the furnace fans 

preliminary analysis technical support document 

(TSD). The furnace fans preliminary analysis TSD 

is available on the DOE Web site: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/42. 

installed in the HVAC product, rather 

than stand-alone performance. 

During the comment period of the test 

procedure NOPR, DOE published a 

Notice of Public Meeting and 

Availability of Preliminary Analysis 

Support Document for the furnace fans 

energy conservation standard 

rulemaking on July 10, 2012. 77 FR 

40530. For the preliminary analysis, 

DOE decided that, although the title of 

the statutory section refers to ‘‘furnaces 

and boilers,’’ the provision governing 

the products at issue in this rulemaking 

was written using notably broader 

language than the other provisions 

within the same section, referring to 

‘‘electricity used for purposes of 

circulating air through ductwork.’’ 5 (42 

U.S.C. 6295(f)) Consequently, DOE 

maintained its interpretation that its 

authority is not limited to circulation 

fans used in furnaces. DOE explained 

that it proposed to address in the 

current energy conservation standard 

rulemaking those products for which 

DOE has sufficient data and information 

to develop credible analyses, and that it 

may consider covering air circulation 

fans used in other HVAC products in a 

future rulemaking as data become 

available. DOE’s preliminary analysis 

addressed furnace fans used in 

weatherized and non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, 

modular blowers, and hydronic air 

handlers. Many comments on DOE’s 

preliminary analysis that address scope 

of coverage are discussed in this section 

because they provide additional 

commentary regarding the scope of 

applicability of the test procedure. The 

comments referenced below are 

available in docket number EERE–2010– 

BT–STD–0010 per the instructions 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this SNOPR. 

Efficiency advocates expressed 

concern at the exclusion of furnace fans 

used in split-system CAC and heat 

pump products and requested that they 

be added to the scope. (Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 17; 

Adjuvant, Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 

at p. 39.) Specifically, efficiency 

advocates commented that although the 

fan energy use is incorporated as part of 

the efficiency metrics—SEER and 

HSPF—prescribed by DOE for these 

products (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 

appendix M), the external static 

pressures (ESPs) used to determine the 

SEER and HSPF do not reflect asinstalled conditions, in which ESP is 

generally significantly higher. (ASAP, 

Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 38; 

Earthjustice, Preliminary Analysis, No. 

49 at p. 1.) In a joint comment from 

ACEEE, ASAP, the National Consumer 

Law Center (NCLC), NEEA, and the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), hereinafter referred to as 

ACEEE, et al., in addition to a comment 

from the California investor-owned 

utilities (CA IOU), efficiency advocates 

stated that the reference ESP of 0.1 to 

0.2 in. w.c. was too low when compared 

to the average field ESP of 0.73 in. w.c. 

as identified in the TSD. (ACEEE, et al., 

Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 1; CA 

IOU, Preliminary Analysis, No. 56 at p. 

2.) ACEEE, et al. also noted that SEER 

and HSPF do not account for 

continuous circulation operation, which 

is expected to increase as stricter 

building codes call for tighter building 

envelopes. (ACEEE, et al., Preliminary 

Analysis, No. 55 at p. 2; CA IOU, 

Preliminary Analysis, No. 56 at p. 3.) By 

excluding these products from the 

analysis, ACEEE, et al. believes that 

DOE is ignoring a significant fraction of 

the furnace fan market. (ACEEE, et al., 

Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 1.) 

Manufacturers’ comments in response 

to the preliminary analysis regarding the 

scope of coverage were similar to their 

comments on the test procedure NOPR. 

In contrast to efficiency advocates and 

utilities, many manufacturers believe 

that the scope of coverage presented in 

the preliminary analysis exceeds the 

authority granted to DOE by EPCA and 

should not include any non-furnace 

products such as central air 

conditioners, heat pumps, or 

condensing unit-blower-coil 

combinations. (First Co., Preliminary 

Analysis, No. 53 at p. 1.) 

DOE notes 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 broader language than the other 

provisions within 42 U.S.C. 6295(f). 

Specifically, that statutory provision 

directs DOE to ‘‘consider and prescribe 

energy conservation standards or energy 

use standards for electricity used for 

purposes of circulating air through 

ductwork.’’ Such language could be 

interpreted as encompassing 

electrically-powered devices used in 

any residential HVAC product to 

circulate air through ductwork, not just 

furnaces, and DOE has received 

numerous comments on both sides of 

this issue. At the present time, however, 

DOE is only proposing test procedures 

for those circulation fans that are used 

in residential furnaces and modular 

blowers. 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 which DOE proposes to 

address as well as those not addressed 

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 air handlers, through-thewall air handlers, SDHV air handlers, 

ERVs, HRVs, draft inducer fans, exhaust 

fans, or hydronic air handlers. 

DOE is using the term ‘‘modular 

blower’’ to refer to HVAC products 

powered by single-phase electricity that 

comprise an encased circulation blower 

that is intended to be the principal air 

circulation source for the living space of 

a residence. A modular blower is not 

contained within the same cabinet as a 

residential furnace, CAC, or heat pump. 

Instead, modular blowers are designed 

to be paired with separate residential 

HVAC products that provide heating 

and cooling, typically a separate CAC/ 

HP coil-only unit. DOE finds that 

modular blowers and electric furnaces 

are very similar in design. In many 

cases, the only difference between a 

modular blower and electric furnace is 

the presence of an electric resistance 

heating kit. DOE is aware that some 

modular blower manufacturers offer 

electric resistance heating kits to be 

installed in their modular blower 

models so that the modular blowers can 

be converted to stand-alone electric 

furnaces. In addition, FER values for 

modular blowers can be easily 

calculated using the proposed test 

procedure. DOE proposes to address the 

furnace fans used in modular blowers in 

this rulemaking for these reasons. The 

proposed definition for ‘‘modular 

blower’’ is provided in section III.C. 

This proposed furnace fan test 

procedure would adopt a significant 

number of provisions from the DOE 

furnace test procedure and would not 

result in significant capital expenditures 

for manufacturers because they would 

not have to acquire or use any test 

equipment beyond the equipment that 

they already use to conduct the test 

method specified in the DOE furnace 

test procedure (i.e. the AFUE test setup). 

DOE also finds that the time to conduct 

a single furnace fan test according to its 

proposed furnace fan test procedure 

would be less than 3 hours and cost less 

than one percent of the manufacturer 

selling price of the product in which the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19612 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

6Section 6295(o)(5) provides as follows: ‘‘The 

Secretary may set more than 1 energy conservation 

standard for products that serve more than 1 major 

function by setting 1 energy conservation standard 

for each major function.’’ 

furnace fan is integrated. Section IV.B of 

this notice includes a more detailed 

discussion of manufacturer test burden. 

Consequently, DOE does not find that 

testing furnace fans according to this 

proposed test procedure would be 

unduly burdensome. 

After considering available 

information and public comments 

regarding the test procedure being 

applicable to fan operation in cooling 

mode, DOE maintains its proposal to 

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 ductwork 

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 test procedure 

must account for electrical consumption 

in a set of airflow-control settings that 

spans all active mode functions. This 

would ensure a more accurate 

accounting of the benefits of improved 

furnace fans. 

DOE is aware that electrical 

consumption of the fan is accounted for 

in the SEER and HSPF metrics that DOE 

uses for CAC and heat pump products. 

However, DOE does not agree with First 

Co.’s interpretation that the EPCA 

language limits DOE’s authority to 

setting one standard for each major 

product function and precludes DOE 

from rating furnace fan consumption in 

operating modes that are accounted for 

by these metrics. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5)) 

EPCA’s language in section 6295(o)(5) is 

phrased in the permissive, rather than 

the restrictive.6 In DOE’s view, this 

permissive language does not impose a 

limitation on DOE’s authority to 

regulate fan electrical consumption for 

these products across all operating 

modes. Furthermore, it is inapposite in 

this situation, where 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. SEER and HSPF are 

used to test cooling and heating 

performance of a CAC or heat pump 

product, whereas FER rates airflow 

performance of a furnace fan product. 

While furnace fan airflow performance 

contributes to cooling and heating 

performance, manufacturers can 

improve SEER and HSPF without 

improving fan performance. In short, 

SEER- and HSPF-based standards do not 

directly target the efficiency of furnace 

fans. DOE recognizes that the energy 

savings in cooling mode from higherefficiency furnace fans used in some 

higher efficiency CAC and heat pumps 

is already accounted for in the analysis 

of standards on those products as a 

result. DOE conducted its preliminary 

analysis to avoid double-counting these 

benefits by excluding furnace fan 

electricity savings that were already 

included in DOE’s analysis for CAC and 

heat pump products. Section 2.7 of 

chapter 2 and chapter 8 of the 

preliminary analysis TSD provide a 

discussion of this issue. 

B. AHRI Test Method 

In the NOPR in response to comments 

on the June 2010 Framework Document, 

DOE proposed to incorporate by 

reference ANSI/AMCA 210–07, citing 

comments that manufacturers currently 

use ANSI/AMCA 210–07 to measure 

furnace fan performance. The NOPR 

provides a more detailed discussion of 

DOE’s consideration of ANSI/AMCA 

210–07 and alternative reference 

standards. 77 FR at 28677 (May 15, 

2012). Commenting on the NOPR, 

manufacturers recommended that DOE 

incorporate provisions from ASHRAE 

37 instead of ANSI/AMCA 210–07. 

Ingersoll Rand commented that fan 

performance data from a DOE test 

procedure that references ANSI/AMCA 

210–07 would not be consistent with 

existing data, which is generated using 

ASHRAE 37. (Ingersoll Rand, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 30) 

Lennox asserted that if DOE uses a test 

procedure that specifies an airflow 

calculation, then ANSI/AMCA 210 is 

not the appropriate standard. According 

to Lennox, ASHRAE 37 would be more 

appropriate if DOE specifies airflow 

calculations. (Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) 

Goodman stated that its airflow 

measurements for furnaces are currently 

performed using ASHRAE 37 setups and 

calculations. Further, Goodman pointed 

out that DOE test procedures to measure 

airflow and power input for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps as defined 

in Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430 require that furnace fan 

performance be measured per ASHRAE 

37 for use in determining ratings for 

SEER and HSPF. Therefore, according to 

Goodman, DOE’s proposal to use ANSI/ 

AMCA 210–07 would require 

manufacturers to test the same product 

with two different test methods to rate 

furnace fans. Goodman believes that 

such an outcome is contrary to 

Congressional intent and the consumers’ 

best interests. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.) 

Morrison added that ANSI/AMCA 210– 

07 is designed to test stand-alone fans, 

while ASHRAE 37 is more appropriate 

for testing fans as part of appliances. 

(Morrison, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23 at p. 38.) Interested parties 

commented that in-situ testing (i.e. 

installed in the HVAC product) is more 

appropriate than testing the furnace fan 

removed from the product in which it 

is integrated. In a joint comment, ASAP, 

ACEEE, NRDC, and NCLC, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Joint Commenters,’’ 

supported DOE’s decision to test the 

furnace fan as factory-installed in an 

HVAC product, which would more 

accurately account for as-deployed 

energy consumption. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 13 at p. 2.) ACEEE 

explained that the impacts of the 

aerodynamics of the HVAC product 

cabinet on fan performance cannot be 

measured by testing the fan removed 

from the cabinet. Unico, Inc. (‘‘Unico’’) 

and Ingersoll Rand echoed these 

sentiments, stating that the furnace fan 

should be tested as part of the appliance 

because the appliance components 

dictate fan performance. (Unico, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 94; 

Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 97.) Adjuvant 

stated that testing air handlers is more 

difficult than DOE’s proposal depicts 

because of the necessity to specify 

appurtenances and other issues like 

cabinet leakage. (Adjuvant, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 29, 30, 

47.) 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that furnace fans should be tested in a 

laboratory and as factory-installed in the 

HVAC product with which it is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19613 

integrated (i.e., in-situ) to account for 

the impacts of airflow path design on 

furnace fan performance. In the NOPR, 

DOE included language in the proposed 

regulatory text that specified that 

furnace fans be tested in-situ. 77 FR at 

28699 (May 15, 2012). DOE recognizes 

that the preamble language of the NOPR 

may not have been clear in this regard. 

In this notice, DOE proposes to specify 

that furnace fans be tested in-situ. 

In written comments, AHRI (with 

support from Goodman, Ingersoll Rand, 

Lennox, and Morrison) proposed an 

alternative test method that they 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 at 

significantly reduced test burden. 

(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.) AHRI 

recommends that DOE specify the 

following procedures to generate the 

measurements used to rate furnace fan 

performance (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3): 

• The furnace should be set up on the 

test stand that is used to measure AFUE. 

• Initially, the furnace should be 

operated in the maximum airflowcontrol setting having adjusted the duct 

restrictions to achieve the external static 

pressure (ESP) proposed in the NOPR 

while in the heating mode (i.e., firing 

the burner). Fuel input, temperature rise 

and power should be measured. 

• Subsequently, power should be 

measured while operating the furnace in 

the heating airflow-control setting and 

again while operating the furnace in the 

constant circulation airflow-control 

setting, both without changing the 

initial duct restrictions in any way and 

without firing the furnace. 

• The maximum airflow used to 

normalize the FER metric should be 

calculated (instead of measured 

directly) based on the measured 

temperature rise, measured fuel input, 

AFUE, and the known heat capacity of 

air. 

• Measurements should be taken at 

nominal voltage and no voltage 

adjustments should be allowed. 

• FER should be calculated using the 

annual operating hours that DOE 

proposed in the NOPR. 

AHRI estimates an approximate 80– 

90% reduction in testing burden 

through the adoption of its proposed 

test method. AHRI stated that this 

reduction is due, in part, to 

manufacturers not having to acquire or 

use any test equipment beyond the 

equipment that is already used to 

conduct the testing specified in the DOE 

furnace test procedure (i.e., the AFUE 

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

of the products to which this procedure 

applies are furnaces subject to the DOE 

furnace test procedure. Rheem 

Manufacturing Company (‘‘Rheem’’), 

Morrison, and Lennox also identified 

using the same test stand for FER and 

AFUE testing as an opportunity to 

minimize burden on manufacturers. 

(Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 21 

at p. 7; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) Lennox 

stated that by requiring an additional 

setup and test process far outside the 

AFUE testing requirements, the burden 

on the engineering and documentation 

side of the proposed procedure is 

significant. (Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) 

Mortex, a small manufacturer, requested 

that furnace fan testing have a minimum 

burden on industry and be within the 

economic capabilities of the small 

manufacturers that would be impacted. 

Mortex explained that small 

manufacturers are low production 

volume, high product mix 

manufacturers and only build products 

when they are ordered. (Mortex, No. 18 

at p. 2.) Goodman echoed Mortex’s 

sentiments, stating that the cost to 

initiate and perform tests using the 

certified test facility required by ANSI/ 

AMCA 210 as proposed in the NOPR is 

disproportionally burdensome to small 

manufacturers that produce 100 to 200 

made-to-order units each needing 

individual certification. (Mortex, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 21, 232; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 2.) According to 

Mortex, capturing the airflow and 

electrical input power at a few 

additional airflow-control settings as 

part of testing for AFUE and Eae, as 

suggested by AHRI, would be relatively 

inexpensive. Mortex added that this 

simplified method should not require 

any capital outlay as compared to DOE’s 

proposed method, which is estimated to 

require $150,000 for a code tester setup. 

(Mortex, No. 18 at p. 2.) Mortex stated 

during the public meeting that using the 

AFUE set up and calculating airflow 

based on temperature rise to rate 

furnace fans would be feasible for small 

manufacturers. Mortex added the caveat 

that such a method would only be 

feasible if paired with a reasonable 

confidence level (i.e., the statistical 

confidence limit expressed as a 

percentage that must be achieved for the 

results of the group of samples tested 

according to the proposed sampling 

plan). (Mortex, Public Meeting 

Transcript, Public Meeting Transcript, 

No. 23 at p. 234.) A detailed discussion 

of the proposed sampling plan, 

including the proposed confidence 

limit, is provided in section III.D. 

AHRI attributed some of the projected 

reduction in burden of its recommended 

test method to the labor savings that 

manufacturers would experience with 

respect to conducting tests and 

calculations. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) 

Allied Air Enterprises (‘‘Allied Air’’) 

commented that the time and cost of 

conducting the proposed test procedure 

would be unduly burdensome. (Allied 

Air, No 23 at p. 20.) Rheem and Lennox 

commented that measuring airflow is 

difficult, labor- and capital-intensive, 

and not necessary to rate furnace fan 

electrical energy use. (Rheem, No. 25 at 

p. 3; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) As 

mentioned previously, Mortex suggested 

that airflow could be calculated by 

using the temperature rise methodology 

already employed for the DOE furnace 

test procedure prior to AHRI submitting 

its recommended alternative test 

method. (Mortex, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 234.) Goodman 

performed tests according to both DOE’s 

proposed procedure and AHRI’s 

suggested method and found that testing 

time is reduced by almost 60% 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.) 

AHRI claimed that its suggested 

method would eliminate potential 

issues associated with fitting quadratic 

curves to the test data to derive FER as 

proposed in the NOPR. According to 

AHRI and Morrison, the quadratic 

curves can be easily manipulated. 

(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Morrison, No. 21 

at p. 5.) Furthermore, AHRI stated that 

the quadratic curves can be significantly 

skewed through a single incorrect 

measurement. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) 

Morrison agrees that DOE should 

abandon the system curve approach in 

favor of AHRI’s proposed method 

because eliminating the need to curve fit 

and find the intersection of second 

order polynomials would reduce the 

burden on manufacturers. Morrison 

stated that the added burden of the 

NOPR method does not provide any 

added value to the purpose of saving 

energy, guiding consumers in making 

correct choices, or enhancing the 

regulatory process. (Morrison, No. 21 at 

p. 5.) NEEA explained that the need for 

quadratic curve-fitting could be 

eliminated by establishing the specified 

external static pressure values in a 

specific mode, and then running the 

remaining tests in other modes without 

modifying the physical test apparatus 

set-up. NEEA and NPPC suggested that 

DOE consider this simplified approach. 

According to NEEA and NPPC, the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

7Public Workshop on Residential Furnace and 

Boiler Venting. May 2002. http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/furnboil_050802_reswh.html. 

result would be testing an air handler 

against a fixed intake and discharge 

configuration, accepting whatever static 

pressure the system generates when 

testing in modes other than the initial 

mode. NEEA and NPCC contended that 

this is how duct systems work in the 

field—they are in a fixed physical 

configuration and the air handler deals 

with the external static pressure created 

and imposed, regardless of what mode 

it is in. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 22 at pp. 2– 

3.) 

Goodman commented that test results 

show that FER values generated using 

AHRI’s test method are within 5% of the 

FER values generated using the test 

procedure proposed in the NOPR. 

(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.) Rheem’s test 

results show similar results. (Rheem, 

No. 25 at p. 4.) 

Efficiency advocates agreed that some 

hybrid of reference standards could be 

used to develop a test procedure that is 

less burdensome than wholly adopting 

ANSI/AMCA 210. However, the Joint 

Commenters stated that simply 

implementing ASHRAE 37 is an 

incomplete solution because this 

method lacks an electrical energy 

consumption measurement. (Joint 

Commenters, No. 13 at p. 3.) The CA 

IOU advised DOE to develop a hybrid 

test procedure that draws from AMCA 

210, ASHRAE 37, and AHRI 210–240 

but emphasized that portions of AMCA 

210 are needed for measuring fan power 

at different airflow rates. (CA IOU, No. 

20 at p. 1.) While unclear from CA IOU’s 

comments, DOE infers that the CA IOU 

are referring to provisions for measuring 

fan performance in multiple airflowcontrol settings. 

In today’s notice, DOE proposes to 

adopt a modified version of the 

alternative test method proposed by 

AHRI. DOE agrees that the key concept 

embodied in the alternative method 

suggested by AHRI and manufacturers 

(using temperature rise to determine 

airflow) can be a viable approach to 

obtain accurate and repeatable FER 

values at significantly reduced burden. 

The methods suggested by AHRI are 

already used in existing industry and 

DOE test methods. ASHRAE 37 includes 

determining airflow based on 

temperature rise as an alternative 

method to using differential pressure 

across nozzles. In addition, the DOE test 

procedure for furnaces includes well 

established and accurate methods for 

measurement of temperature rise, fuel 

input, and steady state combustion 

efficiency based on flue gas temperature 

and carbon dioxide concentrations. 

Additionally, DOE recognizes the 

opportunity to reduce test burden by: (1) 

Aligning the furnace fan test set up and 

procedures with those of the existing 

DOE furnace test procedure; and (2) 

maintaining 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. DOE also 

agrees with advocates and utilities that 

the proposed test procedure should 

reflect field ESP conditions and measure 

furnace fan electrical input power in 

multiple airflow-control settings. The 

AHRI method includes provisions that 

meet these goals. DOE has considered 

the AHRI approach and has concluded 

that some clarifications and 

modifications are necessary to make the 

approach more practicable and accurate. 

For these reasons, DOE proposes to 

adopt a modified version of the 

alternative furnace fan test procedure 

proposed by AHRI. 

DOE proposes the following additions 

and modifications to the test method 

recommended by AHRI: 

• Airflow in the maximum airflowcontrol setting would be calculated 

based on measured air temperature rise 

when the HVAC product is in a heatingmode airflow-control setting rather than 

in the maximum airflow-control setting. 

• In the airflow calculation presented 

by AHRI, AFUE would be replaced by 

a function of steady state efficiency 

(EffySS), measured fuel energy input rate 

(QIN), jacket losses (LJ), and fan 

electrical input power (EHeat) measured 

according to ASHRAE 103–2007 at the 

specified operating conditions. 

• External static pressure would be 

measured as specified in ASHRAE 37. 

• Additional thermocouples would be 

added to the outlet grids used to 

measure temperature rise. 

• Use of a mixer, as described in 

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–1986 (RA 

2006), would be required to minimize 

outlet flow temperature gradients if the 

temperature difference between any two 

thermocouples is greater than 1.5 °F. 

• Greater temperature measurement 

accuracy and tighter stabilization 

criteria would be specified. 

• The 18 °F temperature rise 

minimum specified by ASHRAE 37– 

2005 would be incorporated by 

reference. 

Each of the listed modifications is 

described and explained in more detail 

in subsequent sections. 

1. Calculating Maximum Airflow 

AHRI proposes to calculate airflow 

based on measured temperature rise, 

rated input heat capacity, and AFUE 

using the following equation (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 operating (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. 

DOE is concerned that using AFUE 

and the nameplate fuel energy input 

rate, as defined in AHRI’s proposal, 

would not result in accurate 

representations of airflow at the 

proposed operating conditions because: 

(1) Neither parameter is measured at the 

proposed operating conditions; and (2) 

AFUE is a function of off-cycle 

parameters such as infiltration heat loss 

and pilot light heat generation, which 

do not contribute to the temperature rise 

proposed to be used to calculate airflow. 

While temperature rise would be 

measured at the ESP levels outlined in 

AHRI’s alternative method (which are 

equivalent to those proposed in the 

NOPR and herein), AFUE and 

nameplate input rate would be 

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. Also, results 

from a 2002 comparison of AFUE and 

steady stat efficiency show that the 

steady state efficiency ranges from zero 

to three percent higher than AFUE.7

More recent DOE tests yielded similar 

results, with steady state efficiency 

reaching as high as six percent higher 

than AFUE. DOE proposes to use steady 

state efficiency and fuel energy input 

measured at the proposed operating 

conditions, instead of AFUE and 

nameplate fuel energy input, to address 

these discrepancies and minimize the 

resulting inaccuracies in calculated 

airflow. Manufacturers would only be 

required to take two additional 

measurements (flue or stack gas 

temperature and carbon dioxide 

concentration) using equipment that is 

already in place for AFUE testing as a 

result of the proposed modification. 

DOE recognizes that replacing AFUE 

with steady state combustion efficiency 

at operating conditions would also 

require that jacket losses and the usable 

heat generated by the motor be included 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.030</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19615 

in the calculation. The DOE test 

procedure for furnaces already includes 

methods for accounting for these 

additional factors. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to use the following equation 

to calculate airflow: 

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. 

DOE requests comments on the 

proposed changes to the equation for 

calculating airflow. DOE recognizes that 

the use of the 1.08 conversion factor 

assumes that the airflow has standard 

air properties (e.g., standard air density 

and specific heat). DOE anticipates that 

the properties of the airflow under test 

may deviate from these values at actual 

test conditions, resulting in inaccurate 

airflow calculation results. DOE expects 

that variation in airflow density would 

be the significant driver of these 

inaccuracies. Therefore, DOE also 

requests comment on whether the 

conversion factor should be adjusted by 

the barometric pressure at test 

conditions. (See Issue 1 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

DOE is concerned that certain of the 

test conditions proposed by AHRI could 

lead to test results that are not 

representative of actual furnace fan 

energy use. AHRI’s recommended 

method specifies that the maximum 

airflow be calculated based on a 

temperature rise measurement taken 

while operating the furnace in the 

maximum airflow-control setting and 

firing the burner. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 

21.) DOE is aware that the maximum 

airflow-control setting is often 

designated for cooling operation and not 

for heating. DOE anticipates that firing 

the burner while the furnace is in the 

maximum airflow-control setting is not 

typical of furnace operation, and that 

achieving this combination of settings 

by interfacing with the furnace controls 

may not be possible. The AHRI 

approach also specifies electrical input 

power in the heating airflow-control 

setting be measured without firing the 

burner. 

DOE proposes to modify the AHRI 

recommended method to specify that 

maximum airflow be calculated based 

on a temperature rise measurement 

taken while operating the furnace in the 

rated heating airflow-control setting and 

firing the burner at the heat input 

capacity associated with that airflowcontrol setting. For more details 

regarding the proposed rated airflowcontrol settings, refer to Table II.2 in the 

Summary of the NOPR, 77 FR at 28676 

(May 15, 2012). DOE expects that these 

proposed combinations of operating 

conditions are typical of field furnace 

use. These requirements would help 

ensure that test results are 

representative of actual furnace fan 

energy use, and would minimize the 

potential difficulties associated with 

firing the furnace in an airflow-control 

setting not intended for heating. DOE is 

not proposing any changes in this notice 

to the rated airflow-control settings 

proposed in the NOPR. The procedure 

proposed herein would require that the 

temperature rise measurement be taken 

in the default heating airflow-control 

setting for single-stage furnaces and in 

the default low heating airflow-control 

setting for multi-stage and modulating 

furnaces. 

DOE recognizes that, compared to 

AHRI’s suggested method, more 

complex calculations are required to 

determine the airflow in the maximum 

airflow-control setting based on a 

temperature rise measurement in the 

heating airflow-control setting. DOE 

proposes to specify that ESP 

measurements be taken in conjunction 

with the temperature rise and furnace 

fan electrical input power 

measurements for each rated airflowcontrol setting. Airflow in the rated 

heating airflow-control setting can be 

calculated using the airflow calculation 

equation proposed above. Once the 

airflow in the rated heating airflowcontrol setting has been calculated, the 

physical constant (kref) can be calculated 

using the equation below. kref

characterizes the reference system duct 

restrictions set in the initial test 

conditions. 

Where: 

kref = physical constant that characterizes the 

reference system duct restrictions, 

ESPHeat = external static pressure measured at 

the operating point in the heating 

airflow-control setting, and 

QHeat = airflow in the rated heating airflowcontrol setting. 

The same value for kref can be used to 

characterize the system for all airflowcontrol settings because the same duct 

restrictions would be used for all test 

settings. Airflow in the maximum 

airflow-control setting would be 

calculated using kref and the ESP 

measured in the maximum airflowcontrol setting using the following 

equation. 

DOE is aware that ESP, airflow, and 

electrical input measurements could 

vary due to the different physical 

properties of air (particularly density) at 

higher temperature. As a result, a 

different kref may apply when the 

furnace is firing as compared with 

room-temperature operation without 

firing. To a first order, the pressure drop 

imposed by flow through ductwork can 

be approximated as being proportional 

to fluid density multiplied by the square 

of the velocity. The velocity for a given 

mass flow is proportional to the inverse 

of the density. The density is inversely 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.019</GPH> EP02AP13.020</GPH> EP02AP13.021</GPH> 
19616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proportional to absolute temperature 

(i.e. the temperature expressed in 

degrees Kelvin or Rankine). Hence, the 

relationship between ESP and 

temperature for a fixed mass flow of air 

approximately exhibits the following 

proportionality: 

Where: 

r = Air density, 

v = Air velocity, 

T = Air temperature in degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F), and 

460 = Conversion from degrees Fahrenheit to 

degrees Rankine. 

For operation of a furnace, the higher 

ESP that occurs when it is firing would 

reduce the mass flow of air. 

Consequently, the value of QMax, as 

calculated according to the QMax

equation proposed by DOE above would 

be slightly lower than the actual 

maximum airflow. This is because 

ESPHeat would be slightly elevated and 

QHeat slightly reduced for the hot flow 

that occurs during the measurement 

relative to the way the system would 

behave for room temperature operating 

conditions. DOE proposes an 

adjustment in the QMax equation 

proposed by DOE above to account for 

the elevated temperature in the 

ductwork during the measurement, as 

follows: 

Where: 

THeat = Outlet air temperature in the heating 

airflow-control setting, and 

TMax = Outlet air temperature in the 

maximum airflow-control setting. 

DOE requests comment on the 

proposed adjustment to the QMax

calculation above, which would result 

in greater accuracy in determination of 

the maximum airflow rate. DOE also 

requests comments on the proposed 

modified method for calculating airflow 

in the maximum airflow-control setting. 

Specifically, DOE requests comments on 

how ESP, furnace fan electrical input 

power, and airflow measurements are 

impacted by temperature rise. DOE also 

seeks comment on how those 

relationships would impact the 

accuracy of the calculated value of QMax

and, ultimately, FER. (See Issue 2 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

DOE recognizes that a more accurate 

measurement of temperature rise could 

be made at higher temperature rises 

because the allowable error in 

temperature measurements would 

represent a lower percentage of the 

overall temperature rise. For example, 

the maximum allowable proposed error 

of ± 1 °F (± 0.5 °F at both the inlet and 

outlet) would represent an approximate 

error of 3 percent for a temperature rise 

of 30 °F, and half as much for a 60 °F 

temperature rise. DOE is aware that 

operating the furnace in the reduced 

heat setting for multi-stage furnaces 

would result in a lower temperature rise 

than if fired in the maximum heat 

setting. DOE requests comment on 

whether the maximum airflow should 

be calculated based on the temperature 

rise measured while operating the 

furnace fan in the maximum default 

heat airflow-control setting and at 

maximum heat input capacity to 

minimize the effect of temperature 

measurement error on the overall FER 

calculation. (See Issue 3 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

DOE is concerned that at higher 

elevations the temperature rise would 

be greater due to reduced air mass flow, 

resulting in a higher calculated airflow. 

DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of potential elevation 

impacts on calculated airflow and FER 

values. DOE also requests comments on 

whether specifications, such as a 

maximum test elevation or elevation 

adjustment factor, should be used to 

avoid circumvention associated with 

conducting this test at high elevation. 

(See Issue 4 under ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of 

this SNOPR.) 

2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure 

Measurements 

DOE believes that more detailed 

specifications for setting and measuring 

ESP are required than those in the AHRI 

suggested test method. AHRI’s suggested 

test method specifies that the reference 

system ESP be achieved by 

‘‘symmetrically restricting the outlet of 

the test duct.’’ (AHRI, No. 26 at pp. 8, 

19, 20) The AHRI test method does not 

provide details on the equipment or 

procedures that should be used to meet 

this requirement. (DOE is aware that 

independent test labs typically apply 

cardboard ducting or tape to the corners 

of the outlet to achieve the desired ESP.) 

DOE requests comments on whether one 

or more methods for restricting the 

outlet duct should be included in the 

test procedure. (See Issue 5 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

According to AHRI’s suggested test 

method, use of a return air duct in the 

test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at 

p. 20.) DOE proposes to also allow for 

the optional use of a return air duct; 

however, DOE is concerned that ESP 

may differ when measured with a return 

air duct compared to when measured 

without a return air duct. DOE believes 

that each different motor type may react 

differently with the use of a return air 

duct, but the impacts on the FER 

measurements may be small. DOE 

requests comments on the ESP 

measurements and FER values that 

result when not using a return air duct 

compared to when a return air duct is 

used, and whether the test procedure 

should explicitly require use of a return 

air duct. (See Issue 6 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

V.B of this SNOPR.) 

AHRI’s suggested test method 

specifies that ESP measurements be 

made between the furnace openings and 

any restrictions or elbows in the test 

plenums or ducts and as close as 

possible to the air supply and return 

openings of the furnace. (AHRI, No. 26 

at p. 20) DOE proposes to incorporate by 

reference the ASHRAE 37 provisions for 

measuring ESP (sections 6.4 and 6.5), 

which are consistent with AHRI’s 

suggested specifications and provide 

more detail. DOE anticipates that these 

more detailed specifications would 

minimize variations in test setups and, 

in turn, improve repeatability. DOE 

proposes to specify that ESP be 

measured according to the setup 

illustrated in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37 

when a return air duct is used. This 

setup would require direct measurement 

of the static pressure difference between 

the inlet and outlet of the unit under 

test as opposed to taking separate static 

measurements at the inlet and outlet 

and calculating the difference between 

the two measurements. Direct 

measurement in this context means that 

the inlet and outlet pressure signal 

tubing would be connected on opposite 

sides of a single manometer, rather than 

using two manometers or transducers, 

each being open to the ambient on one 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.022</GPH> EP02AP13.023</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19617 

side. DOE proposes to specify that ESP 

be measured according to the setup 

illustrated in Figure 7 of ASHRAE 37 

when a return air duct is not used. DOE 

does not anticipate any issues with 

specifying ASHRAE 37 provisions for 

measuring ESP because, as mentioned 

above, manufacturers commented that 

ASHRAE 37 is a widely used standard 

for testing HVAC products and is 

recommended for rating furnace fans. 

DOE requests comments on its proposed 

provisions for measuring ESP, which are 

adopted from ASHRAE 37–2005. (See 

Issue 7 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of this 

SNOPR.) 

3. Temperature Rise Measurements 

DOE recognizes that FER results 

generated according to the proposed test 

procedure are sensitive to the 

temperature rise measurement that 

would be used to calculate the airflow 

in the maximum airflow-control setting. 

DOE expects that the equipment and 

methods used to measure temperature 

rise in the AHRI method can be 

improved, which would result in a more 

accurate and repeatable test procedure. 

The modifications that DOE proposes 

are mostly derived from the provisions 

of the alternative method for calculating 

airflow specified in section 7.7.1.2 and 

7.7.4 of ASHRAE 37–2005. 

AHRI’s recommended method adopts 

ASHRAE 103–2007 provisions that 

specify that temperature measurements 

shall have an error no greater than ±2 °F. 

In the worst case scenario, an error of 2 

°F on both the inlet and outlet 

temperature measurements could result 

in an error of 4 °F. DOE estimates that 

an error of 4 °F for the temperature rise 

measurement could yield an error of 

approximately 10% in FER for a typical 

temperature rise between 30 °F and 60 

°F. 

DOE proposes to specify that 

temperature measurements have an 

error no greater than ±0.5 °F. The 

accuracy requirements of existing test 

standards that are used to test these 

products are more stringent—Table 1 in 

section 4 of ASHRAE 37–2005 requires 

temperature measurement accuracy of 

±0.2 °F. DOE requests comment on 

whether ±0.5 °F is reasonably 

achievable. (See Issue 8 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

AHRI’s proposed method does not 

include a minimum temperature rise 

requirement. DOE is concerned that the 

allowable error in temperature 

measurements coupled with a low 

temperature rise could result in 

inaccurate test results. For this reason, 

DOE proposes to require a minimum 

temperature rise of 18 °F, as specified in 

ASHRAE 37–2005. DOE notes that with 

its proposed ±0.5 °F temperature 

measurement accuracy requirement and 

its proposed minimum 18 °F 

temperature rise, the maximum 

potential error in measured airflow 

associated with the temperature rise 

measurement is approximately 5.6%. 

DOE requests comments on whether a 

minimum temperature rise should be 

required and, if so, what is an 

appropriate value for the minimum 

temperature rise. (See Issue 9 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

AHRI’s recommended method adopts 

the stabilization criteria of the DOE test 

procedure for residential furnaces. 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, 

section 7.0. According to section 7.0 of 

the DOE test procedure for furnaces, 

which references section 8.0 of 

ASHRAE 103–1993, steady-state 

conditions for gas and oil furnaces are 

attained as indicated by a temperature 

variation in three successive readings, 

taken 15 minutes apart, of not more 

than: 

• 3 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with draft diverters; 

• 5 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with either draft 

hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent 

systems; and 

• 1 °F in the flue gas temperature for 

condensing furnaces. 

For electric furnaces, steady-state 

conditions are reached as indicated by 

a temperature variation of not more than 

5 °F in the outlet temperature in four 

successive temperature readings taken 

15 minutes apart. 

DOE is concerned that the 

temperature variations specified in the 

above stabilization criteria are not 

stringent enough to maximize accuracy 

and repeatability for evaluating furnace 

fan performance. As mentioned above, 

the FER results generated according to 

the proposed test procedure are 

sensitive to temperature variation 

because they are a function of the 

airflow calculated using measured 

temperature rise. DOE proposes the 

following stabilization criteria to 

address this concern. For testing furnace 

fans used in gas and oil furnaces, DOE 

proposes 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 proposes 

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. DOE requests comments on 

whether the proposed stabilization 

criteria are reasonably achievable, and 

whether the stabilization criteria for the 

AFUE test would be sufficient to assure 

that the entire furnace has thermally 

stabilized to a point such that the 

measured air temperature rise would no 

longer significantly change. (See Issue 

10 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment’’ in section V.B of this 

SNOPR.) 

AHRI’s approach does not include 

provisions to account for potential inlet 

or outlet airflow temperature gradients. 

DOE is concerned that temperature 

gradients are likely to be present, which 

would compromise the accuracy and 

repeatability of the temperature rise 

measurement results. DOE proposes to 

specify the use of a mixer, as depicted 

in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37–2005, 

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. DOE has not had the 

opportunity to evaluate the potential 

inaccuracies associated with allowing 

larger temperature gradients, and 

instead bases this selection on its use as 

the maximum allowable temperature 

difference threshold in ASHRAE 210/ 

240 for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ tests for CAC 

products. These tests use temperature 

rise and airflow measurement to 

determine cooling capacity. The 

proposed furnace fan test method uses 

the inverse of the relationship for these 

factors to determine airflow based on 

measured temperature rise and input 

heat capacity. Hence, the implications 

for temperature gradients to result in 

measurement errors are equivalent. DOE 

requests comment on whether the effect 

on static pressure of adding a mixer 

would prevent the test setup from 

achieving the ESP levels specified in the 

DOE test procedure for residential 

furnaces or the lower ESP levels 

specified in this notice for measuring 

fan performance in the lowest rated 

airflow setting. DOE also seeks comment 

on whether additional thermocouples 

are needed to measure the inlet air 

temperature. (See Issue 11 under ‘‘Issues 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19618 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section V.B of this SNOPR.) 

C. Definitions 

DOE proposes to adopt all definitions 

in section 3 of ASHRAE 103, which are 

already codified in section 2 of 

Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430. 

DOE also proposes to include the 

additional and modified definitions 

listed below. 

• 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. 

• 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 HVAC 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 found in the product literature 

shipped with the unit. 

• Default airflow-control settings are 

the airflow-control settings specified for 

installed use by the manufacturer in the 

product literature shipped with the 

product in which the furnace fan is 

integrated. 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 for the DOE test 

procedure. 

• External static pressure 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. 

• Furnace fan is an electricallypowered device used in a consumer 

product for the purpose of circulating 

air through ductwork. 

• 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/or cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu per hour. 

• Off mode means the condition in 

which the product in which the furnace 

fan is integrated is either not connected 

to the power source or connected to the 

power source but not energized. 

• Standby mode means the condition 

in which the product in which the 

furnace fan is integrated is connected to 

the power source and the furnace fan is 

not circulating air. 

D. Sampling Plans 

DOE provides sampling plans for all 

covered products. The purpose of a 

sampling plan is to provide statistically 

valid representations of energy 

consumption or energy efficiency for 

each covered product by capturing the 

variability inherent in the 

manufacturing and testing process. 

These sampling plans apply to all 

aspects of the EPCA program for 

consumer products, including public 

representations, labeling, and 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards. 10 CFR 429.11. 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 manufacturers commented 

that the 97.5 percent confidence limit 

required by the furnace sampling plan is 

too stringent. See 10 CFR 429.18(a). 

Morrison and Allied Air commented on 

the difficulty of obtaining accurate, 

precise airflow measurements. 

According to Morrison, the uncertainty 

allowable per AMCA 210–07 is much 

greater than what is permissible in the 

furnaces sampling plan. (Morrison, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 

219; Allied Air, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 218.) Unico 

stated that it would have a problem with 

meeting anything close to 97.5 percent 

confidence. (Unico, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 224.) AHRI 

stated that the confidence limits used 

for the AFUE measurement are 

inappropriate for the proposed electrical 

measurements. (AHRI, Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 23 at p. 226.) Ingersoll 

Rand stated that the 97.5 percent 

confidence limit is not going to work 

and would require at least three sample 

units for every model to meet the 

requirement. (Ingersoll Rand, Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 230.) 

Carrier explained that 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. 

According to Carrier, AFUE does not 

consider the electrical efficiency of the 

furnace fan components. Carrier 

recommends the certification and 

enforcement level for furnaces fans to be 

90%, which is consistent with the 

confidence limit for CAC. (Carrier, No. 

10 at p. 4.) Allied Air, Goodman, 

Rheem, Ingersoll Rand, Lennox, and 

Morrison agreed that a sampling plan 

requiring a 90 percent confidence limit 

would be more appropriate. (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.) 

Efficiency advocates also support a 

less stringent confidence interval. 

Adjuvant commented that it strives for 

a 90 percent confidence interval in its 

work with HVAC products, which 

Adjuvant finds to be an appropriate 

level. Adjuvant added that it rarely uses 

95 percent and would not push for 

anything higher than 90. (Adjuvant, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 

229.) NPCC and NEEA commented that 

a 97.5 percent confidence limit is 

unrealistically stringent and might 

cause enforcement testing issues that are 

not helpful in certifying efficiency 

levels. NPCC and NEEA added that air 

flow and external static pressure 

measurements are prone to larger error 

bands than measurements such as 

power levels or temperatures, and are 

likely to cause real problems for 

manufacturers trying to certify to the 

97.5 percent confidence limit. NPCC 

and NEEA recommended using the 

same confidence limits as those used for 

heat pump and air conditioning 

systems, which are subject to some of 

the same measurement error bands as 

air handlers. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 22 at p. 

7.) AHRI stated that confidence limits 

historically have been set without 

supporting data and suggested that DOE 

do a rigorous analysis to determine an 

appropriate confidence limit. (AHRI, 

Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 

225.) 

DOE agrees 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 

herein are different and inherently more 

variable than the measurements 

required for AFUE. DOE proposes to 

adopt a sampling plan that requires any 

represented value of FER to be greater 

or equal to 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/ 

HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE will 

continue to analyze the available test 

data to evaluate the proposed sampling 

plan parameters. DOE requests 

comments, including detailed data, 

regarding test result variance that it can 

use to assess the appropriateness of the 

sampling plan proposed herein. (See 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19619 

Issue 12 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of this 

SNOPR.) 

E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy 

Consumption 

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)) Thus, the statute implicitly 

directs DOE, when developing test 

procedures to support new energy 

conservation standards, to account for 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption. EISA also requires that 

such energy consumption be integrated 

into the overall energy efficiency, 

energy consumption, or other energy 

descriptor, unless the current test 

procedure already accounts for standby 

mode and off mode energy use. If an 

integrated test procedure is technically 

infeasible, DOE must prescribe a 

separate standby mode and off mode 

test procedure for the covered product, 

if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(gg)(2)(A)) Accordingly, DOE must 

address the standby mode and off mode 

energy use of furnace fans in this test 

procedure. However, 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 this test 

procedure rulemaking would be 

applicable. 

Table III.1 summarizes the test 

procedure rulemaking vehicles through 

which DOE addresses standby mode 

and off mode energy consumption for 

the various types of products which 

circulate air through ductwork. 

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

CONSUMPTION

HVAC products Status DOE rulemaking activity 

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

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

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

Addressed in separate rulemaking .................. • Codified Furnaces Test Procedure October 

20, 2010 final rule (75 FR 64621) (10 CFR 

part 430, subpart B, appendix N, section 

8.0). 

• September 13, 2011 NOPR (76 FR 56339). 

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

• Weatherized Gas Furnace .............................

Addressed in separate rulemaking .................. • June 2, 2010 NOPR (75 FR 31224). 

• April 1, 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 18105). 

• October 24, 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 65616). 

DOE prescribed the measurement of 

standby mode and off mode energy use 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces, oilfired furnaces, and electric furnaces in 

the furnace test procedure, 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, appendix N, section 8.0. 

DOE proposed coverage of standby 

mode and off mode energy use for 

modular blowers and weatherized gas 

furnaces in a June 2, 2010 NOPR. 75 FR 

31224. In a September 13, 2011 NOPR, 

DOE proposed amendments to its 

furnace test procedure related to 

standby mode and off mode. 76 FR 

56339. DOE subsequently published one 

SNOPR on April 1, 2011, and another 

on October 24, 2011, regarding standby 

mode and off mode test procedures for 

these products. 76 FR 18105; 76 FR 

65616. DOE published a furnaces 

standby and off mode test procedure 

final rule on December 31, 2012. 77 FR 

76831. Furnace fans are integrated in 

the electrical systems of the HVAC 

products in which they are used and 

controlled by the main control board. 

Therefore, the standby mode and off 

mode energy use associated with these 

furnace fans would be measured by the 

established or proposed test procedures 

associated with these products. There is 

no need for DOE to adopt additional test 

procedure provisions for these modes in 

this rulemaking. 

F. Reference System Product Types 

In the NOPR, DOE identified four 

installation types with unique reference 

system ESP considerations: 

• Heating-only units; 

• Units with an internal evaporator 

coil; 

• Units designed to be paired with an 

evaporator coil; and 

• Manufactured home units. 

DOE anticipated that some HVAC 

products may not be designed to 

provide cooling. Specifically, DOE 

identified hydronic air handler models 

that are not designed to be paired with 

an evaporator coil (either factoryinstalled or separate). DOE proposed to 

specify a lower reference system ESP for 

these products because they do not 

experience the additional pressure drop 

of circulating air past an evaporator coil. 

Ingersoll Rand commented that it was 

not aware of any product that would be 

categorized as a heating-only product. 

Ingersoll Rand added that including this 

installation type could provide 

manufacturers with a means of gaming 

the test procedure by modifying its 

furnaces to eliminate factory-installed 

cooling capabilities, which would allow 

such furnaces to be tested at the lower 

ESP specified for heating-only units. For 

these reasons, Ingersoll Rand 

recommended that DOE eliminate the 

heating-only designation. (Ingersoll 

Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 

at p. 50.) NPCC and NEEA also 

suggested that DOE eliminate the 

heating-only installation type. (NPCC/ 

NEEA, No. 22 at p. 6) 

DOE agrees with interested parties 

that the heating-only installation type 

should be eliminated from 

consideration. The scope of 

applicability of the test procedure 

proposed herein does not include 

hydronic air handlers as discussed in 

section III.A. Consequently, DOE 

proposes to eliminate the heating-only 

product designation as a result. 

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) at 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 

and a final regulatory flexibility analysis 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19620 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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.aspxh). 

12Consortium of Energy Efficiency, Qualifying 

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

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

cee/ceeDirectoryInfo.aspx). 

(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 

adopts as a final rule, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

would 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’s procedures and policies 

may be viewed on the Office of the 

General Counsel’s Web site (http:// 

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

DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule 

under the provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act and the procedures and 

policies published on February 19, 

2003, 68 FR 7990. DOE has tentatively 

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 amendments 

described in this proposed rule would 

represent a substantial burden to any 

manufacturer, including small 

manufacturers, as explained below. DOE 

requests comments on its 

characterization of the furnace fan 

industry in terms of the number of and 

impacts on small businesses. 

This proposed rule would establish 

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 proposes 

new test procedures for active mode 

testing for all such products. The 

proposed rule would 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 proposed 

modifications to AHRI’s approach 

would require minimal, low-cost 

equipment beyond what is currently 

used to perform the AFUE test. This 

additional equipment would include 

additional thermocouples and 

potentially an air mixer. Manufacturers 

commented that this equipment is 

already used by furnace fan 

manufacturers because it is required by 

either ASHRAE 103 or ASHRAE 37, 

which are currently used to test the 

HVAC products considered in this 

rulemaking. Therefore, DOE expects 

little or 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 

proposed 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 per 

DOE’s revised proposed 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 proposed rule, if adopted, would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19621 

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 

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 notice of proposed rulemaking, 

DOE proposes a new 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 proposes a test 

procedure 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 does not result in any 

environmental impacts. 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 Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations, 65 FR 13735. DOE has 

examined this proposed rule and has 

tentatively determined that it would 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 proposed 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. With regard to 

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, the proposed 

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. (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201 

(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531)) For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19622 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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 small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at http:// 

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

DOE examined today’s proposed 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 by State, local, and 

Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any year. Accordingly, no 

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. This 

rule would 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 

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 

would 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 Federal 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 proposed 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 OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

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

regulatory action under 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 proposed 

significant energy action, the agency 

must provide a detailed statement of 

any adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which would 

prescribe the test procedure for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

furnace fans, is not a significant energy 

action because the proposed test 

procedure is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866 and 

is not likely to 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. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule. 

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), 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) Section 32 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 proposed rule 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 37–2005, 

‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning 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. The 

Department has evaluated these 

standards and is unable to conclude 

whether they fully comply with the 

requirements of section 32(b) of the 

FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in 

a manner that fully provides for public 

participation, comment, and review). 

DOE will consult with the Attorney 

General and the Chairman of the FTC 

concerning the impact of these test 

procedures on competition prior to 

prescribing a final rule. 

V. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments using any of the 

methods described in the ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this SNOPR. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

will be viewable to DOE Building 

Technologies staff only. Your contact 

information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19623 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

compact disk (CD), if feasible, in which 

case it is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, written in English, and are free 

of any defects or viruses. Documents 

should not contain special characters or 

any form of encryption and, if possible, 

they should carry the electronic 

signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via email or on 

a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. Airflow Equation 

DOE is concerned that using AFUE 

and QIN, as defined in AHRI’s proposal, 

would not result in accurate 

representations of airflow at the 

proposed operating conditions because 

neither parameter is measured at the 

proposed operating conditions. DOE 

proposes to use steady state combustion 

efficiency and fuel energy input 

measured at the proposed operating 

conditions instead of AFUE and QIN to 

address this discrepancy and minimize 

the potential resulting inaccuracies in 

calculated airflow. DOE recognizes that 

replacing AFUE with steady state 

combustion efficiency would also 

require that jacket losses and the usable 

heat generated by the motor also be 

included in the calculation. Section 

III.B.1 includes a detailed discussion of 

this issue and DOE’s proposed modified 

version of the airflow calculation 

equation. DOE requests comments on 

these modifications to the equation 

proposed by AHRI to calculate airflow. 

DOE recognizes that the use of the 

1.08 conversion factor assumes that the 

airflow has standard air properties (i.e. 

standard air density and specific heat). 

DOE anticipates that the properties of 

the airflow under test may deviate from 

these values at actual test conditions. 

Therefore, DOE also requests comment 

on whether the conversion factor should 

be adjusted by the barometric pressure 

at test conditions. 

2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated 

Heating Airflow-Control Setting To 

Calculate Maximum Airflow 

DOE proposes to modify the AHRI 

recommended method to specify that 

maximum airflow be calculated based 

on a temperature rise measurement 

taken while operating the furnace in the 

rated heating airflow-control setting and 

firing the burner at the heat input 

capacity associated with that airflowcontrol setting. DOE recognizes that, 

compared to AHRI’s suggested method, 

more complex calculations are required 

to determine the airflow in the 

maximum airflow-control setting based 

on a temperature rise measurement in 

the heating airflow-control setting. 

Section III.B.1 includes a detailed 

discussion of DOE’s reasoning, 

methodology, and equations for the 

modified approach to calculating 

airflow in the maximum airflow control 

setting. DOE requests comments on the 

proposed modified method for 

calculating airflow in the maximum 

airflow-control setting. DOE also 

requests comment on whether the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19624 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proposed adjustment to this calculation, 

which accounts for the elevated 

temperature in the ductwork, should be 

incorporated to achieve greater accuracy 

in determination of the maximum 

airflow rate. Specifically, DOE requests 

comments on how ESP, furnace fan 

electrical input power, and airflow 

measurements are impacted by 

temperature rise. DOE also seeks 

comment on how those relationships 

would impact the accuracy of the 

calculated value of QMax and, ultimately, 

FER. 

3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting to 

Measure Temperature Rise 

DOE recognizes that a more accurate 

measurement of temperature rise could 

be made at higher throughput 

temperatures because the allowable 

error in temperature measurements 

would represent a lower percentage of 

the overall temperature rise. DOE 

requests comment on whether the 

maximum airflow should be calculated 

based on the temperature rise measured 

while operating the furnace fan in the 

maximum default heat airflow-control 

setting and at maximum heat input 

capacity to minimize temperature 

measurement error. Section III.B.1 

includes a detailed discussion of this 

issue. 

4. Elevation Impacts 

DOE is concerned that at higher 

elevations the temperature rise would 

be high due to reduced air mass flow, 

resulting in higher calculated airflow. 

DOE requests comments on the 

magnitude of potential elevation 

impacts on calculated airflow and FER 

values. DOE also requests comments on 

whether specifications, such as a 

maximum test elevation or elevation 

adjustment factors, should be used to 

avoid circumvention associated with 

conducting this test at high elevation. 

5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications 

AHRI’s suggested test method 

specifies that the reference system ESP 

be achieved by ‘‘symmetrically 

restricting the outlet of the test duct.’’ 

(AHRI, No. 26 at p. 19.) The AHRI test 

method does not provide details on the 

method or equipment to be used to meet 

this requirement. DOE is aware that 

independent test labs typically apply 

cardboard ducting or tape to the corners 

of the outlet until the desired ESP is 

achieved. DOE requests comments on 

whether more specific methods for 

restricting the outlet duct should be 

included and what these specific duct 

restriction requirements should be. 

Section III.B.2 includes a detailed 

discussion of this issue. 

6. Optional Return Air Duct 

According to AHRI’s suggested test 

method, use of an return air duct in the 

test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at 

p. 20.) DOE proposes to also allow for 

the optional use of a return air duct; 

however, DOE is concerned that ESP 

may differ when measured with a return 

air duct compared to when measured 

without a return air duct. DOE requests 

comments on the relative ESP 

measurements and FER values that 

result when not using an air return duct 

compared to when an air return duct is 

used, and whether the test procedure 

should explicitly require use of a return 

air duct. Section III.B.2 includes a 

detailed discussion of this issue. 

7. ASHRAE 37–2005 External Static 

Pressure Measurement Provisions 

AHRI’s suggested test method 

specifies that ESP measurements be 

made as close as possible to the air 

supply and return openings of the 

furnace and in all cases, between the 

furnace openings and any restrictions or 

elbows in the test plenums or ducts. 

(AHRI, No. 26 at p. 20.) DOE agrees with 

these specifications, but proposes to 

incorporate by reference the ASHRAE 

37 provisions for measuring ESP 

(sections 6.4 and 6.5), which are 

consistent with AHRI’s suggested 

specifications but are more detailed. 

DOE anticipates that these more 

detailed specifications would minimize 

variations in test setups and, in turn, 

improve repeatability. DOE requests 

comments on its proposed provisions 

for measuring ESP, which are adopted 

from ASHRAE 37–2005. Section III.B.2 

includes details of DOE’s proposal for 

measuring external static pressure. 

Temperature Measurement Accuracy 

Requirement 

AHRI’s recommended method adopts 

ASHRAE 103–1993 provisions that 

specify that temperature measurements 

shall have an error no greater than ±2 °F. 

DOE proposes to specify that 

temperature measurements have an 

error no greater than ±0.5 °F to 

minimize error in the resulting FER 

values. DOE requests comment on 

whether ±0.5 °F is reasonably 

achievable. Section III.B.3 includes a 

more detailed discussion of this issue. 

9. Minimum Temperature Rise 

AHRI’s method does not include a 

minimum temperature rise requirement. 

DOE is concerned that the allowable 

error in temperature measurements 

coupled with a low temperature rise 

could result in inaccurate test results. 

For this reason, DOE also proposes to 

require a minimum temperature rise of 

18 °F, as specified in ASHRAE 37–2005. 

DOE requests comments on whether a 

minimum temperature rise should be 

required, and if so, what an appropriate 

value for the minimum temperature rise 

would be. Section III.B.3 includes a 

detailed discussion of this issue. 

10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria 

AHRI’s recommended method adopts 

the stabilization criteria of the DOE test 

procedure for residential furnaces. 10 

CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N, 

section 7.0 DOE is concerned that the 

temperature variations specified in the 

residential furnace stabilization criteria 

are not stringent enough to maximize 

accuracy and repeatability for 

evaluating furnace fan performance 

according to the proposed test 

procedure. In section III.B.3 DOE 

proposes modified stabilization criteria 

to address this concern.. DOE requests 

comments on whether the proposed 

stabilization criteria are reasonably 

achievable, and whether the 

stabilization criteria for the AFUE test 

would be sufficient to assure that the 

entire furnace has thermally stabilized 

to a point such that the measured air 

temperature rise would no longer 

significantly change. 

11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow 

Temperature Gradients 

AHRI’s approach does not include 

provisions to account for potential inlet 

or outlet airflow temperature gradients. 

DOE is concerned that temperature 

gradients are likely to be present, which 

would compromise the accuracy and 

repeatability of the temperature rise 

measurement results. DOE proposes to 

specify the use of a mixer, as depicted 

in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37–2005, 

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. DOE requests comments on 

the proposed requirements for use of an 

air mixer. DOE also requests comment 

on whether the static pressure drop of 

adding a mixer would prevent the test 

setup from achieving the ESP levels 

specified in the DOE test procedure for 

furnaces or the lower ESP levels 

specified in this notice for measuring 

fan performance in the lowest rated 

airflow setting. DOE also seeks comment 

on whether additional thermocouples 

are needed for the inlet. Section III.B.3 

includes a detailed discussion of this 

issue. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19625 

12. Sampling Plan Criteria 

DOE agrees 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 

herein are different and inherently more 

variable than the measurements 

required for AFUE. DOE proposes to 

adopt a sampling plan that requires any 

represented value of FER to be greater 

or equal to 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/ 

HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE 

requests comments that include detailed 

data regarding test result variance that it 

can use to assess the appropriateness of 

the sampling plan proposed herein. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

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 March 25, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy . 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend 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 heating, 

ventilation, and air-conditioning 

(HVAC) product using a 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: 

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 of this subpart). 

(b) Certification reports. [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 430.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing, in paragraph (f)(3) 

‘‘appendix M to subpart B’’ and adding 

in its place ‘‘appendix M and appendix 

AA to subpart B’’; 

■ b. Removing, in paragraph (f)(4), 

‘‘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’’; 

■ c. Redesignating paragraph (f)(10) as 

(f)(11); and 

■ d. Adding paragraph (f)(10); 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(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, ASHRAE approved 

June 27, 2007, ANSI approved March 

25, 2008, IBR approved for appendix 

AA to subpart B. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. 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 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. 

■ 6. 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 

September 30, 2013 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 a furnace fan. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.024</GPH> EP02AP13.025</GPH> 
19626 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

§ 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’’. 

2.5. ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 means the 

test standard published in 2005 by ASHRAE 

entitled ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment’’. 

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 is an electrically-powered 

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 or 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 is either not connected to the 

power source or 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 

source and 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, except section 6.2, of 

ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 430.3); and as specified in 

section 5.1 of this appendix. 

5.1. Temperature. Temperature measuring 

instruments shall meet the provisions 

specified in section 5.1 of ASHRAE 37–2005 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and 

shall be accurate to within 0.5 degree 

Fahrenheit. 

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. If the 

temperature range of the nine individual 

measurements exceeds 1.5 °F, an air mixer as 

described in section 6 of ASHRAE 41.1–1986 

(RA 2006) (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3) shall be used to reduce the 

temperature range to within 1.5 °F. 

Thermocouples shall be placed downstream 

of pressure taps used for external static 

pressure measurement. 

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. An apparatus for 

measuring external static pressure as 

specified in sections 6.4 and 6.5 of ASHRAE 

37–2005 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 430.3) shall be integrated in the plenum 

and test duct. External static pressure 

measuring instruments shall be placed 

between the furnace openings and any 

restrictions or elbows in the test plenums or 

ducts. For tests conducted using a return air 

duct, the external static pressure shall be 

directly measured as a differential pressure 

as depicted in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37–2005 

rather than determined by separately 

measuring inlet and outlet static pressure and 

subtracting the results. For tests conducted 

without a return air duct, the external static 

pressure shall be directly measured as the 

differential pressure between the duct static 

pressure and the ambient static pressure as 

depicted in Figure 7a of ASHRAE 37–2005. 

6.5. Air Filters. Air filters shall be removed. 

6.6. Electrical Measurement. Only 

electrical input power to the furnace fan shall 

be measured for the purposes of this 

appendix. 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, the 

electrical input power to the furnace fan shall 

be sub-metered. 

7. Test Conditions. The testing conditions 

shall be as specified in section 8, except for 

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. 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. × 9 in. 

or 3 in. × 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. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 19627 

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 a temperature variation in three 

successive readings, taken 15 minutes apart, 

of not more than 

(a) 1.5 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with draft diverters; 

(b) 2.5 °F in the stack gas temperature for 

furnaces equipped with either draft hoods, 

direct exhaust, or direct vent systems; and 

(c) 0.5 °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 a temperature 

variation of not more than 1 °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 a temperature variation of not 

more than 1 °F in the outlet air temperature 

in four 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. The main burner or electric 

heating elements shall be turned off. The 

furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to the 

maximum airflow-control setting. The 

external static pressure shall be adjusted to 

the value shown in Table VI.1 by 

symmetrically restricting the outlet of the test 

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

section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix. 

Measure and record furnace fan electrical 

input power (EMax) and external static 

pressure (ESPMax). 

TABLE VI.1—REQUIRED MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE IN THE

MAXIMUM AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTING BY INSTALLATION TYPE

Installation type ESP 

(in.w.c.) 

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

Units designed to be paired 

with an evaporator coil, but 

without one installed ............. 0.65 

Manufactured home .................. 0.30 

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 furnace fan 

controls shall be adjusted to the default 

constant circulation airflow-control 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 

and record 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. Burner 

adjustments shall be made as specified by 

section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103–2007 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). 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. 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. Maintain these settings until 

steady-state conditions are attained as 

specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this 

appendix. Measure and record furnace fan 

electrical input power (EHeat), external static 

pressure (ESPHeat), flue or stack carbon 

dioxide concentration (XCO2,a), flue or stack 

gas temperature (Ta,SS,X), 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 operating point (or 

minimum airflow-control 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 (reduced heat 

input capacity divided by maximum 

input heat capacity) 

kref = physical descriptor characterizing the 

reference system 

DTi = air throughput temperature rise in 

setting i, in °F 

QMax = airflow at maximum airflow-control 

setting at, in cubic feet per minute (CFM) 

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) 

Where: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.026</GPH> 
19628 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

The estimated national average operating 

hours presented in Table VI.2 shall be used 

to calculate FER. 

TABLE VI.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. 2013–07327 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0186; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NE–11–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; General 

Electric Company Turbofan Engines 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

General Electric Company (GE) GE90– 

76B, –85B, –90B, –94B, –110B1, and 

–115B turbofan engines. This proposed 

AD was prompted by multiple reports of 

failure of certain stage 1 high-pressure 

turbine (HPT) stator shrouds due to 

accelerated corrosion and oxidation. 

This proposed AD would require initial 

and repetitive on-wing borescope 

inspections (BSIs) for corrosion and 

oxidation, of the affected stage 1 HPT 

stator shrouds, and removal from 

service before further flight, if the parts 

fail the inspection. We are proposing 

this AD to prevent failure of the stage 

1 HPT stator shrouds, resulting in inflight shutdown of one or more engines, 

loss of thrust control, and damage to the 

airplane. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by June 3, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact General 

Electric Company, One Neumann Way, 

MD Y–75, Cincinnati, OH; phone: 513– 

552–2913; email: geae.aoc@ge.com; and 

Web site: www.GE.com. You may view 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 

New England Executive Park, 

Burlington, MA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 781–238–7125. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Office 

(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the 

ADDRESSES section. Comments will be 

available in the AD docket shortly after 

receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine 

Certification Office, FAA, 12 New 

England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 

01803; phone: 781–238–7747; fax: 781– 

238–7199; email: jason.yang@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2013–0186; Directorate Identifier 2013– 

NE–11–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this proposed AD. We will 

consider all comments received by the 

closing date and may amend this 

proposed AD because of those 

comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this proposed AD. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP02AP13.027</GPH> EP02AP13.028</GPH>