[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 499-524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31257]



[[Page 499]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 2

January 3, 2014

Part IV





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





10 CFR Parts 429 and 430





 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential Furnace 
Fans; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 2 / Friday, January 3, 2014 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 500]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 430

[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0010]
RIN 1904-AC21


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Residential 
Furnace Fans

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 15, 2012, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to initiate the rulemaking to 
establish test procedures for residential furnace fans. On April 2, 
2013 DOE issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) to 
address interested party comments received on the NOPR. The proposed 
rulemaking serves as the basis for today's action. DOE is issuing a 
final rule to establish test procedures for measuring the electrical 
consumption for electrically-powered devices used in weatherized and 
non-weatherized gas, oil and electric furnaces and modular blowers to 
circulate air through ductwork.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is February 3, 2014.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on 
February 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All 
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index. 
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/42. This Web page will contain a link to the docket for this 
notice on the regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will 
contain simple instructions on how to access all documents, including 
public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ronald Majette, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 
586-7935. Email: residential_furnace_fans@ee.doe.gov.
Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 
GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into part 430 the following industry standards:
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, (Supersedes ANSI/ASHRAE 103-
1993), Methods of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 
Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers, ASHRAE Standards Committee 
approved on June 23, 2007, ASHRAE Board of Directors on June 27, 2007, 
ANSI approved March 25, 2008.
    (2) ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically 
Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, ASHRAE 
Standards Committee approved on June 20, 2009, ASHRAE Board of 
Directors approved on June 24, 2009; ANSI approved June 25, 2009.
    You can purchase copies of ASHRAE standards from the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 
1791 Tullie Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, 404-636-8400, or 
www.ashrae.org.
    You can also view copies of these standards at the U.S. Department 
of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, 
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
    A. Scope
    B. AMCA 210
    C. Airflow Equation
    D. Duct Specifications and External Static Pressure Measurement
    E. Temperature Measurement Accuracy Requirement
    F. Minimum Temperature Rise
    G. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria
    H. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature Gradients
    I. Sampling Plan Criteria
    J. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM)
    K. FER Equation
    L. Air Leakage
    M. FER Metric
    N. FER Reporting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Congressional Notification
    N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

    Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to 
EPCA refer to the statute as amended through the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 
18, 2012)). Part B of title III, which for editorial reasons was 
redesignated as Part A upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309, as codified), establishes the ``Energy Conservation Program 
for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles.'' These include products 
that use electricity for the purposes of circulating air through 
ductwork, hereinafter referred to as ``furnace fans,'' the subject of 
today's notice. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D))
    Under the Act, this energy conservation program consists 
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal 
energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA and for making 
representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Any representation made after July 2, 2014 
for energy consumption of residential furnace fans must be based upon 
results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance 
date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for residential furnace 
fans, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to 
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will also 
be required. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures in any

[[Page 501]]

enforcement action to determine whether covered products comply with 
these energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))

General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures 
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for 
covered products. Under EPCA, ``[a]ny test procedures prescribed or 
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test 
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, . . . or estimated 
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative 
average use cycle or period of use . . . and shall not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE 
determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must 
publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to 
present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In 
any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what 
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured 
energy efficiency of a covered product as determined under the existing 
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the 
amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered 
product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard 
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))

Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Furnace Fans

    Pursuant to EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D), DOE is currently 
conducting a rulemaking to consider new energy conservation standards 
for furnace fans. EPCA directs DOE to establish test procedures in 
conjunction with new energy conservation standards, including furnace 
fans. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) DOE does not currently have a test 
procedure for furnace fans. Hence, to fulfill the statutory 
requirements, DOE is conducting this test procedure rulemaking for 
furnace fans concurrently with the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking for furnace fans. The test procedure established by this 
final rule includes an energy consumption metric and the methods 
necessary to measure the energy performance of furnace fans. The energy 
consumption metric does not account for the electrical energy 
consumption in standby mode and off mode because consumption of a 
furnace fan in those modes is already accounted for in the DOE 
rulemakings for furnaces and central air conditioners (CAC) and heat 
pumps. 77 FR 76831 (Dec. 31, 2012); 76 FR 65616 (Oct. 24, 2011). 
Manufacturers will be required to use the energy consumption metric, 
sampling plans, and testing methods established in this final rule to 
verify compliance with the new energy conservation standards when they 
take effect and for making representations of the energy consumption of 
furnace fans.
    On June 3, 2010, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and 
Availability of the Framework Document (the June 2010 Framework 
Document) to initiate the energy conservation standard rulemaking for 
furnace fans. 75 FR 31323. In the June 2010 Framework Document, DOE 
requested feedback from interested parties on many issues related to 
test methods for evaluating the electrical energy consumption of 
furnace fans. DOE held the framework public meeting on June 18, 2010. 
DOE originally scheduled the framework comment period to close on July 
6, 2010. However, due to the large number and broad scope of questions 
and issues raised regarding the June 2010 Framework Document in writing 
and during the public meeting, DOE published a notice in the Federal 
Register reopening the comment period from July 15, 2010, until July 
27, 2010, to allow additional time for interested parties to submit 
comments. 75 FR 41102 (July 15, 2010).
    On May 15, 2012, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking in 
the Federal Register to initiate the test procedure rulemaking for 
furnace fans. 77 FR 28674. In the May 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed an energy 
consumption metric, fan efficiency rating (FER), and proposed methods 
to measure the performance of furnace fans based on FER. DOE held a 
public meeting on the test procedure NOPR on June 15, 2012. The test 
procedure NOPR comment period closed on September 10, 2012.
    In response to the May 2012 NOPR, many interested parties commented 
that the proposed test procedure was unduly burdensome. The Air-
Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), with support 
from Goodman Global, Inc. (``Goodman''), Ingersoll Rand, Lennox 
International, Inc. (``Lennox''), and Morrison Products, Inc. 
(``Morrison''), proposed an alternative test method that these parties 
argue would result in accurate and repeatable FER values that are 
comparable to the FER values resulting from the test procedure proposed 
in the NOPR, but are obtained at a significantly reduced test burden. 
(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 
at p. 1; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) On April 2, 
2013, DOE published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNOPR) in the Federal Register. A detailed discussion of AHRI's 
proposed alternative method and interested parties' comments regarding 
the burden of the test procedure proposed in the NOPR is provided in 
the SNOPR. 78 FR 19612 (April 2, 2013) In the April 2013 SNOPR, DOE 
proposed to adopt a modified version of the test method presented by 
AHRI as the furnace fan test procedure. DOE agreed that the key concept 
embodied in the alternative method suggested by AHRI and manufacturers 
(using the AFUE test set up and temperature rise to determine airflow) 
may provide accurate and repeatable FER values at a significantly 
reduced burden to manufacturers.\1\ DOE also explained the changes 
reflected in the test procedure proposed in the SNOPR compared to the 
test procedure proposed in the NOPR. 78 FR 19606 (Apr. 2, 2013)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Temperature rise in this context and for the purposes of 
this rule is the difference between the inlet and outlet air 
temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Final Rule

    Pursuant to EPCA, this final rule establishes test procedures to 
enable DOE to develop energy conservation standards to address the 
electricity used for the purpose of circulating air through duct work. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (f)(4)(D)) The test procedure established 
by this notice is applicable to circulation fans used in weatherized 
and non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, and 
modular blowers. The test procedure is not applicable to any non-ducted 
products, such as whole-house ventilation systems without ductwork, 
central air-conditioning (CAC) condensing unit fans, room fans, and 
furnace draft inducer fans.
    DOE aligned the test procedure established by this final rule with 
the DOE test procedure for furnaces by incorporating by reference 
specific provisions from an industry standard that is also incorporated 
by reference in the DOE test procedure for furnaces. DOE's test 
procedure for furnaces is codified in appendix N of subpart B of part 
430 of the code of federal regulations (CFR). The DOE furnace test 
procedure incorporates by reference American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air 
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 103-1993, Method of Testing for Annual 
Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central

[[Page 502]]

Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103-1993). This final rule incorporates by 
reference the definitions, test setup and equipment, and procedures for 
measuring steady-state combustion efficiency provisions of the 2007 
version of ASHRAE 103 (ASHRAE 103-2007). In addition to these 
provisions, the test procedure established by this final rule includes 
provisions for apparatuses and procedures for measuring temperature 
rise, external static pressure, and furnace fan electrical input power. 
The test procedure established by this final rule also incorporates by 
reference provisions for measuring temperature and external static 
pressure from ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment 
(ASHRAE 37-2009). There are no differences between the 2005 version 
(which is already incorporated by reference in the CFR) and the 2009 
version of the ASHRAE 37 provisions incorporated by reference for this 
final rule. This final rule also establishes calculations to derive the 
rating metric, fan energy rating (FER), for each furnace fan basic 
model based on the results of testing per the test method established 
by this notice.
    FER is the estimated annual electrical energy consumption of the 
furnace fan normalized by: (a) The estimated total number of annual fan 
operating hours (1,870); and (b) the airflow in the maximum airflow-
control setting. For the purposes of the test procedure established by 
this final rule, the estimated annual electrical energy consumption is 
the sum of the furnace fan electrical input power (in Watts), measured 
separately for multiple airflow-control settings at different external 
static pressures (ESPs), multiplied by national average operating hours 
associated with each setting. These ESPs are determined by a reference 
system, based on operation at maximum airflow, that represents national 
average ductwork system characteristics.
    Table II.1 includes the reference system ESP values by installation 
type that are specified by the test procedure. In previous rulemaking 
documents for the furnace fan test procedure and energy conservation 
standard rulemaking, DOE used the term ``manufactured home furnace'' to 
be synonymous with ``mobile home furnace'', as defined in the Federal 
Register. 10 CFR 430.2. DOE will use the term ``mobile home'' 
hereinafter to be consistent with the Federal Register definition for 
``mobile home furnace.'' All provisions and statements  regarding 
mobile homes and mobile home furnaces are applicable to manufactured 
homes and manufactured home furnaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mobile home external static pressure is much lower because 
there is no return air ductwork in mobile homes. Also, the United 
States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 
requirements for manufactured homes stipulate that the ductwork for 
cooling should be designed for 0.3 in. wc. 24 CFR 3280.715.

  Table II.1--Required Reference System Criteria (i.e., ESP at Maximum
                Airflow) by Furnace Fan Installation Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              ESP at
                                                              maximum
                    Installation type                      airflow (in.
                                                                wc)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units with an internal evaporator coil..................            0.50
Units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil.....            0.65
Units designed to be installed in a mobile home \2\.....            0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE recognizes that some furnace fan basic models may be marketed 
and designed to be installed in multiple installation types. For 
example, a non-weatherized, non-condensing gas furnace that can be 
installed in both mobile homes and non-mobile residences meets the 
definition for ``units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil'' 
and ``units designed to be installed in a mobile home.'' In this final 
rule, DOE is specifying that a manufacturer must test, rate, and 
certify compliance of the basic model of furnace fan in all of the 
installation types for which it is marketed and designed. For example, 
the basic model of furnace fan that is used in a non-weatherized, non-
condensing furnace, as described above, that is marketed and designed 
to be installed in both non-mobile home and mobile home residences will 
need to be tested and certified as both a non-weatherized, non-
condensing gas furnace fan using the ``units designed to be paired with 
an evaporator coil'' reference system criteria and as a mobile home, 
non-weatherized, non-condensing gas furnace fan using the ``units 
designed to be installed in a mobile home'' reference system criteria.
    This test procedure requires measurements for the airflow-control 
settings that correspond to fan operation while performing the cooling 
function (which DOE finds is predominantly associated with the maximum 
airflow-control setting), heating function, and constant-circulation 
function. Table II.2 describes the required airflow-control settings by 
product type.

          Table II.2--Airflow-Control Settings at Which Measurements are Required for Each Product Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Airflow-control setting  Airflow-control setting  Airflow-control setting
             Product type                         1                        2                        3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage Heating.................  Default constant-        Default heat...........  Absolute maximum.*
                                        circulation.
Multi-stage or Modulating Heating....  Default constant-        Default low heat.......  Absolute maximum.
                                        circulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the purposes of the test procedure established by this notice, ``absolute maximum'' airflow-control
  setting refers to the airflow-control setting that achieves the maximum attainable airflow at operating
  conditions specified by this test procedure.

    As shown in Table II.2, for products with single-stage heating, the 
three airflow-control settings to be tested are: The default constant-
circulation setting; the default heating setting; and the absolute 
maximum setting. For products with multi-stage heating or modulating 
heating, the airflow-control settings to be tested are: the default 
constant-circulation setting; the default low heating setting; and the 
absolute maximum setting. The absolute lowest airflow-control setting 
is used to represent constant circulation if a default constant-
circulation setting is not specified. For this test procedure, DOE 
defines ``default airflow-control settings'' as the airflow-control 
settings for installed use specified by the manufacturer in the product 
literature shipped with the product in which the furnace fan is 
integrated. Manufacturers typically provide detailed instructions for 
setting the default heating airflow-control setting to ensure that the 
product in which the furnace fan is integrated operates safely. In 
instances where a manufacturer specifies multiple airflow-control 
settings for a given function to account for varying

[[Page 503]]

installation scenarios, the highest airflow-control setting specified 
for the given function shall be used for the DOE test procedure. High 
heat and reduced heat will be considered different functions for multi-
stage heating units. Manufacturer installation guides also provide 
detailed instructions regarding compatible thermostats and how to wire 
them to achieve the specified default settings.
    The Watt measurements for calculating FER are weighted using 
designated annual operating hours for each function (i.e., cooling, 
heating, and constant circulation) that represent national average 
operation. Table II.3 shows the estimated national average operating 
hours for each function.

                Table II.3--Estimated National Average Operating Hour Values for Calculating FER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Single-stage    Multi-stage or modulating
             Operating mode                        Variable               (hours)               (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating.................................  HH........................             830  830/HCR.
Cooling.................................  CH........................             640  640.
Constant Circulation....................  CCH.......................             400  400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For multi-stage heating or modulating heating products, the 
specified operating hours for the heating mode are divided by the 
heating capacity ratio (HCR) to account for variation in time spent in 
this mode associated with turndown of heating output. The HCR is the 
ratio of the measured reduced heat input rate to the measured maximum 
heat input rate.
    The FER equation is:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.001
    
III. Discussion

A. Scope

    In the SNOPR, DOE addressed interested party comments on the NOPR 
regarding the scope of coverage. DOE proposed test procedures for 
circulation fans that are used in residential furnaces and modular 
blowers. 78 FR 19609 (Apr. 2, 2013)
    AHRI and Morrison Products, Inc. believe that modular blowers 
should be excluded from the scope of the rulemaking because they are 
not currently a federally regulated product. They add that, if 42 
U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) were intended to cover modular blowers, then there 
would have been a corresponding change to the definition of furnace or 
the addition of this product class along with a direction to develop a 
corresponding test procedure. Additionally, the proposed test 
procedures in the SNOPR are insufficient for modular blowers and fail 
to account for the fact that some modular blowers in today's 
marketplace are not even designed to operate with electric heat 
resistance kits. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2) 
Lennox International, Inc. agrees with DOE's decision not to include 
fans used in other products, such as split-system central air-
conditioning and heat pump air handlers or hydronic air handlers. 
(Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 1) Additionally, like AHRI, Lennox feels that 
DOE should not include modular blowers in the scope of coverage because 
the definition of modular blowers that is contained in the proposed 
regulation does not support the conclusion that modular blowers and 
electric furnaces are very similar in design. (Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 
2) Furthermore, modular blowers that are not electric furnaces do not 
currently require AFUE testing. Thus, the test procedure imposes the 
requirement to run AFUE tests on non-furnaces, which adds additional 
burden to manufacturers as well as additional testing costs. (Lennox, 
No. 0031 at p. 2) Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. reiterated in 
comments that DOE's interpretation of the scope in the SNOPR is too 
broad and in error. Goodman stated that furnace fan electrical power 
consumption in cooling mode should not be included in the scope of this 
rule because it is already accounted for by the SEER metric when the 
furnace fan is used with a split-system air conditioner or split-system 
heat pump. DOE stated in the SNOPR that EPCA does not impose a 
limitation on DOE's authority to regulate fan electrical consumption 
for these products across all operating modes because, in this 
situation, two different products are being regulated, one the CAC or 
heat pump product, and one the separate furnace fan product, which may 
or may not be incorporated into a CAC or heat pump.'' (78 FR at 19612) 
Goodman commented that DOE's justification in the SNOPR for including 
furnace fan cooling mode operation ignores the fact that in 100% of 
applications where a furnace is operated in the cooling mode the 
furnace is matched with either a central air-conditioner or heat pump 
product. (Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 4)
    On the other hand, the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) 
and Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPPC) strongly disagrees 
with DOE's proposal to exclude hydronic and split system air 
conditioning and heat pump air handlers from the proposed scope. NPPC/
NEEA commented that DOE noted in the SNOPR that ``The NOPR test 
procedure's proposed scope of applicability included single phase, 
electrically-powered devices that circulate air through ductwork in 
HVAC systems with heating input capacities less than 225,000 Btu per 
hour, cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu per hour, and airflow 
capacities less than 3,000 cfm.'' NPPC/NEEA finds this scope to be 
perfectly acceptable and appropriate, and suggests that there is 
nothing in this language that would exclude hydronic or central air 
conditioning and heat pump air handlers. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 2) 
Additionally, NPPC and NEEA note that sold separately, the air handlers 
used for central air conditioning and heat pump systems are virtually 
indistinguishable from a modular blower, as DOE defines the latter. 
NPPC and NEEA argue that they are the same thing, particularly since 
DOE plans to include modular blowers that can be sold with electric 
resistance heating kits. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 3) Furthermore, 
NPCC/NEEA state that hydronic air handlers can be properly referred to 
as ``furnaces'', thus, the need to specify a different test procedure 
for them, other than the one

[[Page 504]]

proposed for gas- or oil-fired furnaces, is not a valid reason for 
excluding them from coverage in this rulemaking. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 
at pg. 3)
    Like NPCC/NEEA, the American Gas Association (AGA) supports DOE 
including furnace fans used in other products, such as split-system 
central air-conditioning and heat pump air handlers, through-the-wall 
air handlers, as well as other types of air handlers, but understands 
that DOE is not addressing these products in this rulemaking but will 
do so in future rulemakings. (AGA, No. 0040 at pg. 1) The California 
Investor Owned Utilities (CA IOUs) also believe DOE should include 
furnace fans that are part of blower-coil and single-packaged central 
air-conditioners and heat pumps within the scope of the standards 
rulemaking because the SEER and HSPF do not adequately capture fan 
energy use. Additionally, CA IOUs encourage DOE to keep hydronic air-
handlers within the scope, and to develop a test procedure for this 
product class. (CA IOUs, No. 0032 at p. 1)
    As discussed in the SNOPR, DOE noted that, although the title of 
this statutory section refers to ``furnaces and boilers,'' the 
applicable provision at 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) was written using 
notably broader language than the other provisions within the same 
section. 78 FR 19606, 19611. Specifically, the applicable statutory 
provision directs DOE to ``consider and prescribe energy conservation 
standards or energy use standards for electricity used for purposes of 
circulating air through duct work.'' Such language could be interpreted 
as encompassing electrically-powered devices used in any residential 
HVAC product to circulate air through duct work, not just furnaces, and 
DOE has received numerous comments on both sides of this issue. At the 
present time, however, DOE is only establishing test procedures for 
those circulation fans that are used in residential furnaces and 
modular blowers (see discussion below). As a result, DOE is not 
addressing public comments that pertain to fans in other types of HVAC 
products. The following list describes the furnace fans that DOE is 
addressing in this rulemaking and those that DOE is not addressing in 
this rulemaking.
     Products addressed in this rulemaking: furnace fans used 
in weatherized and non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric 
furnaces, and modular blowers.
     Products not addressed in this rulemaking: furnace fans 
used in other products, such as split-system CAC and heat pump blower-
coil units, through-the-wall blower-coil units, small-duct, high-
velocity (SDHV) blower-coil units, energy recovery ventilators (ERVs), 
heat recovery ventilators (HRVs), draft inducer fans, exhaust fans, or 
hydronic blower-coil units.
    The test procedure established by this notice is applicable to 
modular blowers. All modular blower models of which DOE is aware can be 
operated in conjunction with an electric resistance heat kit. DOE 
expects that the number of modular blowers that are not designed to 
operate with an electric resistance heat kit is de minimis. 
Consequently, DOE is including modular blowers in the scope of coverage 
of the test procedure established by this final rule. Manufacturers 
that produce modular blowers that cannot be operated in conjunction 
with an electric resistance heat kit will likely have to apply for a 
waiver from the test procedure. Waiver applications could include a 
proposed alternative test method that includes provisions for 
generating measureable heat in the airflow of the product that can be 
used to calculate airflow per the specified airflow equations. DOE 
recognizes that testing products that meet the definition of furnace 
fan, but were previously not subject to DOE's regulatory provisions, 
requires an investment of time and resources, as Lennox suggests. 
However, DOE interprets EPCA to require consideration of standards for 
modular blowers, and DOE does not find the time and resources required 
to test modular blowers according to the test procedure established by 
this final rule to be unduly burdensome.
    After considering available information and public comments 
regarding exclusion of fan operation in cooling mode, DOE maintains 
that the test procedure established by this rule account for the 
electrical consumption of furnace fans while performing all active mode 
functions (i.e., heating, cooling, and constant circulation). DOE 
recognizes that furnace fans are used not just for circulating air 
through duct work during heating operation, but also for circulating 
air during cooling and constant-circulation operation. DOE anticipates 
that higher airflow-control settings are factory-set for cooling 
operation. Therefore, DOE expects that the electrical energy 
consumption of a furnace fan is generally higher while performing the 
cooling function. Additionally, the design of the fan as well as its 
typical operating characteristics (i.e., ESP levels during operation in 
different modes) is directly related to the performance requirements in 
cooling mode. DOE is also concerned that excluding some functions from 
consideration in rating furnace fan performance would incentivize 
manufacturers to design fans that are optimized to perform efficiently 
at the selected rating airflow-control settings but that are not 
efficient over the broad range of field operating conditions. In DOE's 
view, in order to obtain a complete assessment of overall performance 
and a metric that reflects the product's electrical energy consumption 
during a representative average use cycle, the metric must account for 
electrical consumption in a set of airflow-control settings that spans 
all active mode functions. This ensures a more accurate accounting of 
the benefits of improved furnace fans.

B. Standby and Off Mode

    EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007, Public Law 110-140 (EISA), requires that any final rule for a new 
or amended energy conservation standard adopted after July 1, 2010, 
must address standby mode and off mode energy use pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) In the NOPR and SNOPR, DOE explained 
that DOE has already fully incorporated standby mode and off mode 
energy use in the test procedures (or proposed test procedures) for all 
of the products to which the test procedure established by this notice 
is applicable. 77 FR 28688 (May 15, 2012) and 78 FR 19619 (April 2, 
2013). summarizes the test procedure rulemaking vehicles through which 
DOE addresses standby mode and off mode energy consumption for the 
products covered by this rulemaking.

[[Page 505]]



 Table III.1--Rulemaking Activities Addressing Furnace Fan Standby Mode
                     and Off Mode Energy Consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       DOE rulemaking
         HVAC products            DOE rulemaking          activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Gas Furnaces.........  Residential         Docket: EERE-
 Oil-fired Furnaces...   Furnaces.          2013-BT-TP-0008.
 Electric Furnaces....                      Most Recent
                                                    Notice: September
                                                    13, 2011
                                                   NOPR (76 FR 56339).
 Modular Blowers......  Residential         Docket: EERE-
 Weatherized Gas         Central Air        2009-BT-TP-0004.
 Furnace.                        Conditioners and   Most Recent
                                 Heat Pumps.        Notice: October 24,
                                                    2011 SNOPR (76 FR
                                                    65616).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no need for DOE to adopt additional test procedure 
provisions for standby and off mode energy use in the test procedure 
established by this rulemaking. DOE maintains its position that the 
standby mode and off mode energy use associated with furnace fans used 
in products covered by this rulemaking would be measured by the 
established or proposed test procedures associated with these products.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to include circulation fans used in 
hydronic air handlers in the scope of applicability of the test 
procedure. There are no current DOE test procedures for measurement of 
electrical energy use in hydronic air handlers, nor is there an ongoing 
rulemaking to establish such test procedures. Consequently, DOE also 
proposed in the NOPR to integrate the standby mode and off mode 
electrical energy consumption measurements with the active mode metric 
for hydronic air handlers, resulting in an integrated FER (IFER). DOE 
received a number of comments in response to the NOPR regarding the 
IFER metric. In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to exclude circulation fans 
used in hydronic air handlers from the scope of coverage of the test 
procedure. As discussed in section III.A above, the test procedure 
established by this final rule excludes circulation fans used in 
hydronic air handlers.

C. AMCA 210

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure based on the provisions 
specified in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air 
Movement and Control Association International, Inc. (AMCA) 210-07 
[verbar] ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air 
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 51-07, Laboratory Methods of Testing 
Fans for Certified Aerodynamic Performance Rating (AMCA 210). 77 FR 
28674 (May 15, 2012) Many interested parties commented on the NOPR that 
AMCA 210 is not an appropriate reference standard for rating furnace 
fan performance. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; 
Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) In the 
SNOPR, DOE proposed a test procedure that would not adopt provisions 
from AMCA 210. Consequently, DOE did not address comments received from 
interested parties on the NOPR regarding AMCA 210 in the SNOPR. 
Likewise, the test procedure established by this final rule does not 
include provisions from AMCA 210. Therefore, DOE is not addressing 
comments received from interested parties on the NOPR regarding AMCA 
210 in this notice.

D. Reference System

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to specify a single reference system per 
product installation type that would be characterized by an ESP value 
representing national average operating conditions of a residential 
duct system for a furnace fan operating in the maximum airflow-control 
setting. 77 FR 28683 (May 15, 2012) In the SNOPR notice, DOE did not 
address interested parties' comments received in response to the NOPR 
regarding its proposed reference system requirements. DOE did not alter 
its proposed reference system requirements in the SNOPR. Hence, 
interested party comments regarding this topic are summarized and 
addressed below.
    Many interested parties commented that the reference system ESP 
values should be lower than those proposed in the NOPR. Rheem stated 
that a single furnace ESP specification at 0.65 in. wc. has not been 
shown to represent a national average duct system, and ratings should 
not be based on poor ESP field conditions where installers ignore 
manufacturers' installation instructions. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 3) 
AHRI stated that the proposed reference system in the NOPR specifies 
external static pressures that are too high as compared to the external 
static pressures in the federal test procedure for furnaces. (AHRI, No. 
0023 at pg. 15) Goodman echoed AHRI's comments, stating that they are 
concerned that FER is based on elevated external static pressures and 
ignores the fact there are a significant number of applications with 
lower values. (Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 2) Goodman added that using 
elevated static pressure values will only condone higher/increased 
energy consumption, poor ductwork design and application. (Goodman, No. 
0017 at pg. 5) Goodman stated that a survey of its products indicated 
that watt/cfm is roughly 15% lower at 0.2 in. wc. and 25% lower at 0.4 
in. wc. than at the DOE-proposed 0.65 in. wc., suggesting there should 
be incentive to operate at lower statics to reduce energy. (Goodman, 
No. 0017 at pg. 6) Morrison stated that by accounting for ESPs that are 
reported to be fully representative of field conditions in the NOPR, 
DOE is advocating scenarios that do not comply with the instructions in 
manufacturers' installation manuals. (Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 6) 
Unico, Inc. stated that field pressure measurements are known to be 
notoriously inaccurate and extremely challenging to collect. (Unico No. 
0023 at pg. 94)
    Some interested parties recommended that DOE re-evaluate and 
increase its proposed reference system ESP requirements. NPCC/NEEA 
commented that DOE's data for manufactured home ESP values, which come 
primarily from the Northwest, may not be representative of the national 
average ESP for manufactured home products because of a long history of 
energy efficiency programs for those products in that region. NPCC/NEEA 
recommends that DOE collect additional data on field ESP from other 
regions of the country before settling on ESP values. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 
0022 at pg. 6) CA IOU recommended that DOE increase the proposed test 
ESP based on a recent study for the California Energy Commission \3\ 
for which the resulting average furnace fan cooling mode ESP was 0.85 
in. wc. (CA IOU, No. 0020 at pg. 4) The Wisconsin Department of 
Administration, Division of Energy Services (WI-DOA) stated the 
reference system ESP should be over 0.55 inches. The WI-DOA provided 
field measurements for 39 furnace

[[Page 506]]

installations throughout Wisconsin that had ESP values between 0.32 in. 
wc. and 1.33 in wc. (WI-DOA, No. 0007 at pg. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Efficiency Characteristics and Opportunities for New 
California Homes'' can be found at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-062/CEC-500-2012-062.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a joint comment from ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, and the National 
Consumer Law Center (NCLC), hereinafter referred to as ACEEE, et al., 
efficiency advocates strongly support DOE's proposal to characterize a 
reference system at external static pressures that mimic field 
conditions. (ACEEE, et al., No. 0013 at pg. 3) NEEA stated that the 
range of external static pressures presented by DOE is reasonable based 
on measured data. (NEEA, No. 0023 at pg. 167) United Technologies (UTC) 
also agrees with the reference ESP values selected by DOE, but 
recommends that the reference ESPs should be no higher. (UTC, No. 0010 
at pg. 2)
    The test procedure established by this final rule specifies the 
reference system ESP values proposed in the NOPR, which DOE did not 
modify in the SNOPR. DOE finds that these ESP values are consistent 
with known field conditions. For the NOPR, DOE gathered field data from 
available studies and research reports to determine an appropriate ESP 
value to propose for the reference system for each installation type. 
DOE compiled over 1300 field ESP measurements from several studies that 
included furnace fans in single-family and mobile homes in different 
regions of the country as part of that effort.\4\ DOE was not able to 
acquire nor did DOE receive from interested parties additional data 
sources for mobile home ESP values on which to base a revision of its 
previous analysis. However, DOE feels confident in its estimated 
national average reference system ESP value for these products because 
the field conditions underlying the values are prescribed by HUD, as 
explained in footnote Error! Bookmark not defined. in section II. DOE 
reviewed the CEC study referred to by the CA-IOU and the field 
measurements provided by WI-DOA. The range and average of the ESP data 
provided in the CEC study and WI-DOA's measurements are consistent with 
the rest of the data DOE collected. DOE therefore concludes that this 
new data supports the reference system ESP levels proposed in the SNOPR 
and adopted in this final rule (which is above 0.55 in. wc. as WI-DOA 
recommends for the product installation types included in its study).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE has included a list of citations for these studies in 
the docket for this rulemaking. The ADDRESSES section of this notice 
provides a link and instructions for accessing the docket. . . . The 
docket number for this rulemaking is EERE-2010-BT-TP-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE expects specifying ESP values that are representative of field 
conditions will result in ratings that are most representative of field 
energy use. DOE also expects that the use of manufacturer-recommended 
ESPs might underestimate furnace fan energy consumption, because the 
ESP of field-installed HVAC systems typically exceeds the ESP 
recommended by manufacturers. Like manufacturers, DOE is also concerned 
about the energy use impact of installations with high static 
pressures. However, DOE does not expect that a reduction in average 
field ESPs that approaches the manufacturer-recommended levels is 
likely to occur, because installing new, larger, and more-efficient 
ducts in existing homes is generally cost-prohibitive. DOE, like the 
manufacturers, would prefer that homeowners modify the ductwork to 
reduce energy use, but DOE has no authority to require larger ducts in 
this rulemaking. DOE is concerned that a metric based on a low, albeit 
desirable, static pressure level would not accurately represent actual 
furnace fan energy consumption. Also, DOE is concerned that a metric 
based on a low static pressure may lead to excessive energy use by 
furnace fan designs which do not achieve high efficiency levels when 
operating at the higher, field static pressures. Adapting the 
efficiency metric to the field conditions better facilitates meaningful 
comparisons of furnace fans operating under these conditions.
    Interested parties commented on DOE's proposed approach to specify 
using the maximum airflow-control setting to characterize the required 
reference system. Goodman believes that because of the large 
variability of airflow rate provided by most furnaces, the use of a 
maximum value could potentially mislead the consumer to purchase a 
product to be applied at less than maximum airflow rate that has a 
better rating at maximum than another product, even though the other 
product may have lower energy consumption for a lower airflow rate. 
(Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 4) National Resources Canada (NRCan) 
commented that the NOPR correctly noted that it is not clear from the 
reports of installed static pressures for residential furnaces if the 
measurements were taken with furnace control settings configured to 
provide their maximum air flow when operating in cooling mode. In the 
absence of clear evidence that field measurements of ESP in cooling 
mode were actually made with the furnaces adjusted to their highest air 
flow settings, it is not possible to link field measured ESPs in 
cooling mode to the maximum air delivery capabilities of the furnace 
fans. NRCan adds that establishing the reference system ESP using the 
maximum air flow for which a furnace is capable of operating in cooling 
mode biases the test and ratings for all other modes towards lower 
static pressures (which may be lower than field ESP levels for those 
operating modes). NRCan suggests that one approach that DOE might 
consider for specification of the reference system would be to use 
furnace fan control settings that produce an air flow suitable for a 
cooling system with a capacity that matches the national average 
cooling system (using a default design air flow rate of say 400 cfm per 
ton of cooling capacity) in place of using the maximum air flow setting 
and an unspecified cooling capacity. (NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 2) 
Conversely, UTC agrees with DOE's use of a reference ESP that is based 
on the highest airflow control setting for the fan efficiency rating 
procedure. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 2)
    DOE acknowledges the concerns of Goodman and NRCan regarding the 
impact that requiring measurements in the maximum airflow-control 
setting has on FER and, in turn, on manufacturer design and consumer 
purchasing decisions. However, FER is primarily intended for evaluating 
the national average performance of furnace fans. To best fulfill this 
intent, FER estimates national average annual energy use. Manufacturers 
have the option of providing a full account of fan performance in 
addition to FER in product literature to inform consumers. DOE expects 
that FER will enable consumers to evaluate relative performance across 
the entire range of expected field operation because FER is determined 
based on measurements of furnace fan electrical input power for 
multiple airflow-control settings at different external static 
pressures that span the entire range of expected operation. As a 
result, FER includes and reflects the reduced energy consumption of a 
product that performs more efficiently at less than maximum airflow 
compared to a product that performs more efficiently at maximum 
airflow, as in Goodman's example. DOE disagrees with NRCan that 
manufacturers are likely to design products with higher maximum 
airflow-control settings to achieve better FER ratings, because FER 
includes electrical input power consumption in that setting, which 
increases as the airflow in that setting increases. In turn, FER may 
also increase.

[[Page 507]]

    DOE recognizes NRCan's concern that DOE assumes that the ESP field 
measurement data DOE gathered are linked to the maximum airflow-control 
setting. However, the reports from which DOE gathered ESP field data 
specified that the ESP measurements were taken in cooling airflow-
control settings. As NRCan and other interested parties have confirmed, 
furnace fans typically operate in the highest of available airflow-
control settings for cooling. As mentioned above, DOE did not find or 
receive from interested parties any additional information upon which 
to re-evaluate its assumption that field ESP data collected in cooling 
airflow-control settings is representative of field ESP in maximum 
airflow-control settings.
    DOE also recognizes that specifying the reference system in the 
maximum airflow-control setting may result in FER measurements taken in 
lower airflow-control settings at ESP levels that are lower than if a 
default cooling airflow-control setting were specified for the 
reference system (as suggested by NRCan). However, DOE expects that 
specifying the reference system in an airflow-control setting based on 
national average cooling capacity according to NRCan's suggestion will 
not address the issues that NRCan raises with the approach outlined by 
DOE. The NRCan approach will result in airflow-control selections that 
deviate from the settings ultimately selected at installation if the 
product is not installed to deliver national average cooling capacity, 
resulting in similar biases. In addition, some products that are 
designed for cooling capacities much higher or much lower than the 
national average may not have airflow-control settings that meet 
NRCan's national average criteria. Specifying the reference system in 
the maximum airflow-control setting is more appropriate than the 
alternative approach presented by NRCan for these reasons. Accordingly, 
the test procedure established by this notice specifies the reference 
system in the maximum airflow-control setting.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define ESP to mean the difference 
between the fan total pressure at the air outlet and the total pressure 
at the air inlet less velocity pressure at the air outlet, which is 
consistent with the AMCA 210 definition for ESP. In response to the 
NOPR, Unico and Goodman stated that they support the ASHRAE 37 
definition and measurement specifications for external static pressure. 
ASHRAE 37 defines external static pressure as static pressure measured 
at the outlet less the static pressure measured at the inlet (or 
ambient if a return air duct is not used). (Unico, No. 0023 at pg. 40; 
Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 6) UTC recommended that DOE use the following 
definition for ESP: ``The difference between the system inlet and 
outlet static pressures measured in the attached ducting. In laboratory 
testing, the inlet may be non-ducted such that the inlet static 
pressure is zero''. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 4) AMCA stated that ``fan 
static pressure'' is not the static pressure rise through the fan. 
According to AMCA, the ``Fan static pressure'' is the static pressure 
rise minus the inlet velocity pressure. (AMCA, No. 0019 at pg. 2) 
Conversely, NRCan had no issues with the definition of ESP as proposed 
in the NOPR. (NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 6; NPCC/NEEA, No. 0022 at pg. 6)
    The test procedure established by this final rule adopts the ASHRAE 
37 definition of external static pressure as suggested by Unico and 
Goodman. The definition that UTC recommends is also consistent with the 
ASHRAE 37 methods for measuring ESP.
    Interested parties also commented on using a single-reference 
system method for representing average residential ducting systems 
versus a multiple-reference system. UTC agreed with the fan efficiency 
rating method proposed in the NOPR using a single-reference system 
method. (UTC No. 0010 at pg. 2) Rheem prefers a single reference system 
which is consistent with the furnace rating plate and manufacturer's 
installation instructions, but agreed to the multi-reference system in 
CSA 823 as a compromise to avoid establishment of a rating based on an 
unsafe and faulty installation condition. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 8) 
NPCC/NEEA find the CSA multi-reference system approach and 
manufacturer-recommended installation ESP values to be inconsistent 
with field data and a single set of ESP conditions should be specified. 
(NPCC/NEEA, No. 0022 at pg. 6) Ingersoll Rand supports only one 
reference system stating that a multi-reference system would not add 
enough value to warrant double testing. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0014 at 
pg. 4) Morrison stated that it is better to have two static pressure 
levels rather than a single high static pressure level to help 
consumers and others distinguish between good and bad practice in the 
field. (Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 171) Unico recommended a single 
reference system method because performance data based on multiple 
reference systems will not improve the quality of decision making on 
the part of the contractor or consumer. (Unico, No. 0015 at pg. 5) 
NRCan stated that DOE's assumption that default heating airflow is 
within 80 to 90 percent of maximum airflow for a given product 
undermines its conclusion that using multiple reference systems is not 
justified. NRCan provided example furnaces for which the heating 
airflow was between 35 and 88 percent of maximum airlfow. (NRCan, No. 
0011 at pg. 3)
    The test procedure established by this notice specifies one 
reference system curve for each installation type because DOE cannot 
set standards based on multiple metrics. Requiring measurements for a 
second reference system would also increase test burden. For the NOPR, 
DOE investigated the use of a combined metric based on multiple 
reference system curves. DOE found that the combined, multiple 
reference system FER values varied on average by less than 2 percent 
with a standard deviation of 2 percent compared to the proposed, single 
reference system FER and did not alter the ranking of furnace fans by 
FER. 77 FR 28686 (May 15, 2012) In response to the furnace fan 
framework document, Rheem suggested criteria for a two reference system 
approach: one reference system at 0.3 in. wc. and another at 0.6 in. wc 
both in the default heating setting. These reference system criteria 
are equivalent to those specified in CSA Standard C823-11, Performance 
of Air Handlers in Residential Space Conditioning Systems. DOE chose to 
use different criteria that comprised higher ESP values and in the 
maximum airflow-control setting for its NOPR evaluation of using 
multiple reference systems. In the NOPR, DOE stated that the reference 
system criteria it selected for its investigation is approximately 
equivalent to those suggested by Rheem for products for which the 
heating airflow is within 80 to 90 percent of maximum airflow. DOE 
recognizes NRCan's concern that a furnace fan's heating airflow is not 
always within 80 to 90 percent of maximum airflow. DOE presented this 
information to explain how its selected criteria for evaluating a 
multiple reference system approach compared to Rheem's recommended 
criteria, not as a justification for proposing to specify a single 
reference system.
    In addition, the test method proposed by DOE in the NOPR would 
require measuring fan performance at enough operating points within 
each available airflow-control setting to derive performance curves. 
These curves would allow for calculating fan performance at any 
operating point in any given airflow-control setting, which would 
enable the use of multiple reference systems without requiring 
additional measurements. In the SNOPR, DOE modified its proposed test 
method to reduce burden. DOE's

[[Page 508]]

proposed SNOPR test procedure would only require fan performance to be 
measured only at operating points consistent with the specified 
reference system. Requiring measurements for a second reference system 
would increase the burden of the test method DOE proposed in the SNOPR 
because additional measurements would be necessary. For these reasons, 
the test procedure established by this notice does not require multiple 
reference systems.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require measurements at three specific 
ESP values without any tolerances. 77 FR 28700 (May 15, 2012) Allied 
Air stated that because systems can become unstable when measuring 
airflow in the high or low end of the static pressure range, tolerances 
should be allowed. (Allied Air, No. 0023 at pg. 184) Additionally, UTC 
recommended that a minimum tolerance of +/-0.05 be allowed for the 
three ESPs to allow for slight variations in the measurement equipment. 
(UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 4)
    DOE's test experience confirms Allied Air's and UTC's concerns that 
specific ESP values are difficult to achieve and maintain when 
measuring airflow. The test procedure established by this notice 
specifies that products maintain an ESP level between the minimum 
reference system value and 0.05 in. wc. above that minimum value 
throughout the stabilization period and at the time that measurements 
for the maximum airflow-control setting are taken to allow for slight 
variations.

E. Airflow Equation

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require measurement of airflow 
directly using the pressure drop across nozzles according to the 
procedures in AMCA 210. Interested parties commented on the NOPR that 
this method would be overly burdensome. AHRI, with the support of a 
number of manufacturers, proposed a method of calculating airflow based 
on temperature rise, which would significantly reduce test burden 
because it can be measured using procedures and a test setup consistent 
with those used for the DOE test procedure for furnaces (AHRI, No. 16 
at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; 
Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3). Specifically, AHRI proposed the following 
equation for calculating airflow (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 23):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.002

Where:

Q = airflow, in cubic feet per minute (CFM),
AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency, as determined by the DOE 
furnace test procedure,
QIN = fuel energy maximum nameplate input rate at steady-state 
operation (including any pilot light input), in British Thermal 
Units per hour (Btu/h),
1.08 = Conversion from airflow and temperature rise to heating rate, 
and
[Delta]T = measured temperature rise.

    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to use a modified version of AHRI's 
proposed equation to calculate airflow. The numerator of AHRI's 
proposed airflow equation estimates the amount of heat energy produced 
by the furnace as the nameplate annual fuel utilization efficiency 
(AFUE) multiplied by the nameplate fuel energy input rate 
(QIN). DOE proposed to estimate heat energy differently 
because nameplate AFUE and QIN are determined based on 
measurements taken at the ESP levels required by the DOE furnace test 
procedure (i.e. specified in ASHRAE 103-1993), which are significantly 
lower than those proposed in the SNOPR of this rule. Specifically, DOE 
proposed to estimate heat energy as steady-state efficiency 
(EffySS) less percent jacket losses quantity multiplied by 
QIN all measured at the operating conditions proposed in the 
SNOPR. DOE also proposed to add a term to the numerator to account for 
the recoverable heat from the fan. DOE expects that its estimate of 
heat energy improves the accuracy of the equation. DOE proposed the 
following equation for calculating airflow in the SNOPR. 78 FR 19615 
(April 2, 2013)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.003

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
[Delta]T = temperature rise measured at specified operating 
conditions.

    AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, and Morrison are concerned that the test 
procedures specified within the SNOPR would require that a manufacturer 
test the steady-state efficiency and jacket losses of a furnace at a 
new and higher external static pressure operating point, causing an 
undue increase in testing burden. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 
0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3) 
AHRI and Morrison stated that the FER metric is comprised of two 
distinct furnace operation descriptors--the first is calculated from 
electrical energy measurements at three separate test conditions and 
the second is airflow at a single test condition. AHRI, Rheem, and 
Morrison believe that the airflow component of the FER metric is 
secondary in importance and is meant to simply provide a frame of 
reference. They believe that some of DOE's proposed modifications to 
AHRI's proposed test procedure would increase the testing burden on the 
industry while adding little or no benefit, and strongly urge that DOE 
not require furnace manufacturers to measure an additional steady-state 
efficiency to calculate the FER metric because it would impose an 
additional testing burden. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 1; Rheem, No. 0035 at 
pg. 1; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 1) Ingersoll Rand stated that if the 
furnace is running within the allowable rise range, the AFUE can be 
used in place of the steady-state efficiency and jacket loss in the 
calculation procedure. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 1) AHRI and 
Morrison believe that using nominal values associated with AFUE (which 
also accounts for jacket losses) and QIN to calculate 
airflow is a conservative approach and will eventually lead to 
conservative FER values. Additionally, using AFUE and QIN 
reduces the testing burden on manufacturers, as compared to measuring 
steady-state combustion efficiency and determining jacket losses, which 
could take up to two additional hours for every basic model. (AHRI, No. 
0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2) Lennox and Rheem, on the 
other

[[Page 509]]

hand, agree with DOE that using the steady-state combustion efficiency 
and the measured fuel energy input would provide more accurate air flow 
calculations, as opposed to using AFUE and nominal fuel energy input. 
(Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 2) Goodman strongly 
suggests DOE consider allowing an alternate method of directly 
measuring airflow using a code tester and ASHRAE 37 ductwork (a method 
typically used by manufacturers for airflow data published in technical 
product literature). (Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 1)
    DOE is aware that manufacturers will be required to test products 
that include furnace fans that have already been tested to comply with 
other DOE rulemaking requirements (e.g., the residential furnace energy 
conservation standard). However, EPCA requires DOE to consider 
standards for furnace fans, and DOE does not find the time and 
resources required to test furnace fans according to the test procedure 
established by this final rule to be unduly burdensome.
    DOE agrees with interested parties that the SNOPR proposal to 
measure steady-state efficiency (EffySS), jacket loss (LJ), 
and fuel energy input (QIN) instead of using nameplate 
values of AFUE and QIN to calculate airflow would result in 
increased accuracy, but would require additional testing time. In the 
SNOPR, DOE stated that EffySS could range from 0 to 6 
percentage points higher than AFUE. More recent DOE tests resulted in 
EffySS values that ranged from 0 to 4 percentage points 
higher than AFUE, confirming DOE's previous estimates. DOE agrees with 
manufacturers' estimates that approximately 2 hours of additional 
testing time would be required if measured values for 
EffySS, LJ and QIN are used to 
calculate heat energy instead of nameplate AFUE and QIN. 
Through testing, DOE finds that as much as 1.5 hours of this additional 
testing time will be needed for set up of the jacket loss test. The 
flue or stack gas temperature and carbon dioxide concentration 
measurements needed to measure steady-state efficiency require less 
than 10 minutes in DOE's experience. For condensing furnaces, the test 
procedure proposed in the SNOR would require 30 additional minutes to 
collect condensate to measure steady-state efficiency. DOE disagrees 
with AHRI, Rheem, and Morrison that the airflow calculation is 
secondary in importance and that accuracy should be compromised. 
However, DOE agrees that time to test should be minimized while 
maximizing accuracy. The test procedure established by this final rule 
requires that the airflow used in the FER equation be calculated based 
on measured values of steady-state efficiency and fuel input energy. 
However, like the DOE test procedure for furnaces, the test procedure 
established by this final rule allows manufacturers the option of 
measuring jacket loss or using a default value of 1 percent. In recent 
DOE tests, jacket loss measurements ranged from 0.1 to 0.9 percent, 
with an average of 0.5 percent and a standard deviation of 0.2 percent. 
Consequently, the difference between measured LJ and the 
default value can be expected to be less than 1 percent. Manufacturers 
that opt to use the default jacket loss value of 1 percent will avoid a 
significant majority of the additional testing time required to 
calculate airflow, but the expected deviation from measured values is 
reduced to less than 1 percent with this approach. DOE considers this 
an acceptable range of accuracy to reduce test burden.
    DOE also recognizes that using a code tester and ASHRAE 37 
ductwork, as Goodman suggests, could be an alternative test method that 
provides similar results to the test procedure established by this 
final rule. However, a test procedure based on this approach would 
differ significantly from the test procedure established in this 
notice. An auxiliary fan at the outlet of the airflow chamber may be 
required to achieve the external static pressures specified by this 
rule. This method of varying external static pressure is not consistent 
with the method specified by this final rule, which requires that the 
same duct restrictions be maintained throughout the test after initial 
reference system conditions are met. In addition, a test setup that 
includes a code tester is not typical when currently testing a furnace 
and would add substantial burden. Instead, DOE tried to harmonize, 
where possible, the test set up for furnaces and furnace fans. These 
differences could have significant impacts on the consistency of using 
a code tester in lieu of the setup and methods specified in this rule. 
Consequently, DOE is not adopting an alternative method of using a code 
tester to measure airflow for this rule.
    AHRI and Lennox stated that the assumption that the cooling airflow 
rate can be calculated using the measured temperature rise in the 
heating mode is not substantiated in the SNOPR. AHRI recommended that 
the furnace is fired at the maximum airflow rate to calculate 
QMax. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3) 
Additionally, Rheem and Morrison stated that the QMax value 
is representative and that the method proposed by AHRI based on firing 
the furnace at the maximum airflow is sufficiently accurate. (Rheem, 
No. 0035 at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3) NPCC/NEEA stated that 
for multi-stage systems, three modes of test are not enough to properly 
characterize how the system will be used in the field. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 
0022 at pg. 5)
    DOE disagrees with AHRI, Rheem, Lennox, and Morrison that firing 
the furnace in the maximum airflow-control setting is always 
sufficiently accurate. As stated previously, DOE finds that the maximum 
airflow-control setting is most often designated for cooling. Firing 
the burner in the maximum airflow-control setting in these instances 
would not be representative of field use. Also, DOE finds that firing 
the furnace in a maximum airflow-control setting that is designated 
only for cooling is not always achievable by third-party testing 
facilities by interfacing with the product controls. DOE's airflow 
adjustment approach is a necessity in these cases. For these reasons, 
the test procedure established in this final rule includes provisions 
for both product variations: products for which the maximum airflow-
control setting is designated for heating, and products for which the 
maximum airflow-control setting is designated only for cooling. The 
provisions for products for which the maximum airflow-control setting 
is designated for heating are provided in section III.M. The provisions 
for products for which the maximum airflow-control setting is 
designated only for cooling are as proposed in the SNOPR. 78 FR 19627 
(April 2, 2013) In short, the maximum airflow is determined by 
calculating the airflow according to the equation above for a heating 
setting and adjusted to the maximum (cooling) setting based on pressure 
measurements.
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate airflow based on the 
temperature rise in the default heat setting for single-stage products 
and the default low heat setting for multi-stage products. DOE 
requested comment from interested parties in the SNOPR on whether a 
more accurate calculation of airflow could be achieved based on 
temperature rise measured in the maximum heat setting for multi-stage 
furnaces because temperature rises in the maximum heat setting would be 
higher. 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, and Goodman disagree with DOE's assertion 
that operating a multi-stage furnace at the maximum heat setting 
results in a higher temperature rise. They went on to state that there 
are instances where the temperature rise at a reduced heat setting is 
higher than the temperature

[[Page 510]]

rise at the maximum heat setting. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Rheem, No. 
0035 at pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2)
    DOE's review of product literature confirms comments from AHRI, 
Rheem, Morrison and Goodman that the maximum heat setting does not 
always result in higher temperature rise. Consequently, the test 
procedure established in this final rule adopts the provisions proposed 
in the SNOPR, which require firing at the reduced heat input and 
associated airflow-control setting to calculate airflow.
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to calculate airflow based on 
temperature rise using the equation presented in this section above. 
DOE's proposed equation included a constant of 1.08 for converting 
temperature rise and heating rate to airflow. This constant assumes 
that air has a constant density of 0.075 pounds per cubic foot (lb/
ft\3\). In the SNOPR, DOE requested comments from interested parties on 
whether the 1.08 constant should be adjusted by barometric pressure 
because air density changes with pressure (often due to elevation 
changes and varying weather conditions). 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, and Goodman agree with DOE that 
higher elevations would have an impact on temperature rise and 
calculated airflow. They believe that the maximum test elevation should 
be 2,000 feet and recommend that furnace fans should not be tested 
above 2,000 feet without an appropriate adjustment to the test 
conditions and calculations. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 0031 
at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3; 
Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, and 
Ingersoll Rand suggest that DOE consider the use of a 1.08 conversion 
factor that is adjusted by barometric pressure at test conditions. 
(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 3; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; Rheem, No. 0035 at 
pg. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 3; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 1; 
Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2)
    DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, and 
Ingersoll Rand that the 1.08 conversion factor should be adjusted by 
barometric pressure at test conditions. The test procedure established 
by this final rule includes provisions for measuring the humidity ratio 
and dry bulb temperature of the test room near the inlet to determine 
the specific volume of test room air in cubic feet per pound of dry air 
to calculate airflow. As a result, the 1.08 conversion factor is no 
longer a constant. Instead the constant is a function of the specific 
volume of test room air in cubic feet per pound of dry air at test 
conditions. Consequently, the airflow calculation specified by the test 
procedure established by this final rule is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.004

Where:

Q = airflow in CFM,
EffySS = steady-state efficiency in % as determined according to 
ASHRAE 103-2007 at the specified operating conditions,
LJ = jacket loss in % as determined according to ASHRAE 103-2007 at 
specified operating conditions or a default value of 1%,
QIN = measured fuel energy input in Btu/h at specified operating 
conditions based on the fuel's high heating value determined as 
required in section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3 of ASHRAE 103-2007,
3413 = conversion of kW to Btu/h;
Emotor = electrical energy to the furnace fan motor in the settings 
for which airflow is being calculated in kW that is recovered as 
useable heat,
60 = conversion from hours to minutes,
0.24 = specific heat capacity of dry air in Btu/lb[deg]F,
0.44 = specific heat capacity of water vapor in Btu/lb[deg]F,
W = humidity ratio in pounds water vapor per pounds dry air,
vair = specific volume of dry air at specified operating conditions 
per the equations in the psychrometric chapter in 2001 ASHRAE 
Handbook--Fundamentals in lb/ft\3\
[Delta]T = temperature rise measured at specified operating 
conditions.

Test room air properties are required to be measured near the inlet of 
the product under test to minimize the impacts of test room humidity 
and temperature gradients. For electric furnaces and modular blowers, 
EffySS equals 100, and QIN is the measured electrical input power to 
the sub-metered electric resistance heat kit multiplied by 3,413 kW per 
Btu/h.

F. Duct Specifications and External Static Pressure Measurement

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to use the methods specified in AMCA 210 
for rating fans. The proposal called for evaluation of the fan 
performance at the flows and ESPs associated with a reference system 
curve by (1) measuring performance at multiple conditions at each 
airflow-control setting, (2) developing equations to represent the 
airflow and power input of the fan as a quadratic function of ESP, (3) 
mathematically determining the ESP associated with the reference system 
curve for the tested airflow-control setting using the airflow 
equation, and (4) calculating power input using the developed power 
input equation. Interested parties commented on the NOPR that the AMCA 
210 method would be unduly burdensome and that an acceptable 
alternative would be to maintain the same duct restrictions throughout 
the test after initial reference system conditions are met in lieu of 
the previously proposed methods of making multiple determinations in 
each airflow-control setting and curve-fitting to identify operating 
points. Because the AMCA 210 method requires use of a supplemental test 
facility fan to achieve the desired flow and ESP conditions, this 
method is not amenable to moving to all of the target flow conditions 
on the reference system curve simply by changing the speed of the 
furnace fan under test. In contrast, the test approach suggested by 
AHRI and other stakeholders and adopted in the SNOPR is amenable to 
this simplified approach. DOE proposed in the SNOPR to adopt the 
alternative method suggested by interested parties and to use the 
provisions in ASHRAE 103-2007 for achieving the specified ESP levels in 
the maximum airflow-control setting by ``symmetrically restricting the 
outlet duct''. DOE requested comments from interested parties whether 
this language was sufficiently instructive or if more details are 
necessary (such as which materials and procedures to use to restrict 
the duct). 78 FR 19624 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman all agree that DOE should not 
specify the methods for restricting the outlet duct. (AHRI, No. 0034 at 
pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 3; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, 
No. 0037 at pg. 2) AHRI and Morrison stated that a symmetrical duct 
restriction is needed in order to achieve repeatable results, but the 
manufacturer should be allowed

[[Page 511]]

to determine the type of material that would lead to symmetrical 
restrictions on the outlet duct. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Morrison, 
No. 0036 at pg. 4) Rheem also stated that a specific duct restriction 
is needed to assure repeatable test results, and further explained that 
they have adopted the method of ``symmetrically restricting the outlet 
of the test duct.'' (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 4)
    DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman that the 
proposed requirement to symmetrically restrict the outlet of the test 
duct to achieve the specified ESP is sufficient. The test procedure 
established by this final rule includes this provision.
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow manufacturers the option of 
rating their products with or without a return air duct. 78 FR 19616 
(April 2, 2013) AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman all agree with 
DOE's proposal to allow for the optional use of a return air duct. 
(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 
at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) Furthermore, Goodman added that 
if a return air duct is used, then DOE should specify that the return 
air pressure tap should be downstream of any bends or turns in the 
return air duct. (Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) Rheem stated that it 
follows the duct and plenum arrangements shown in Figure 2 of ASHRAE 
103-1993, in which the downflow configuration requires an inlet duct 
and the upflow and horizontal configurations do not require an inlet 
duct. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 4) Ingersoll Rand proposed that inlet 
ducts should be allowed on an optional basis as detailed in ASHRAE 103-
2007 with pressure taps 12 inches from the furnace inlet. (Ingersoll 
Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2)
    DOE agrees with manufacturers that the test procedure established 
by this final rule should allow for the optional use of a return air 
duct. The test procedure includes this provision. The test procedure 
also specifies that pressure taps be placed on all four sides of the 
duct, 12 inches from the inlet, and downstream of any bends or turns in 
the return air duct.
    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the provisions in ASHRAE 37 for 
measuring external static pressure that specify duct geometry and 
pressure tap placement. 78 FR 19616 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI and Lennox agree that the DOE test procedures should provide a 
detailed specification and a diagram for measuring the external static 
pressure. However, using the provisions in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37 may 
require a duct that is too tall for the ceiling height of a laboratory 
that is used for testing furnaces. Additionally, in Figure 7a in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2005, the tap location dimension from the furnace outlet is 
two times the square root of the duct width times the duct depth, which 
would put the tap into the 90 degree bend of the duct and cause 
inaccurate static pressure measurements. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; 
Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4). AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, and Goodman added 
that DOE should specify the four tap arrangement in AHSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 37 with the specification that the pressure taps be placed 18 
inches from the furnace outlet. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Rheem, No. 
0035 at pg. 5; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 
2). Furthermore, Rheem stated that the proposed DOE requirement would 
no longer allow Rheem to make test measurements for AFUE and FER on the 
same test stand. A horizontal test set up would be required for FER 
measurement. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 5) Ingersoll Rand proposed that 
the fan test method specify ASHRAE 103-2007 ducts with static pressure 
taps on all four sides located 12 inches from furnace outlet. 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2)
    Through recent testing experience, DOE confirms AHRI's, Lennox's, 
and Rheem's comments that the ASHRAE 37duct requirements, in some 
cases, can be incompatible with the ASHRAE 103-2007 setup, and that for 
larger products, ducts that meet the ASHRAE 37 requirements are too 
large for typical furnace testing facilities. Consequently, the test 
procedure established by this final rule adopts the provisions 
suggested by AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, and Goodman which require ducting 
dimensions to meet ASHRAE 103 setup requirements with a pressure tap on 
each of the four faces of the outlet duct, 18 inches from the outlet, 
and upstream of any bends or turns in the duct.

G. Temperature Measurement Accuracy Requirement

    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to require temperature measurement 
errors no greater than +/-0.5 degrees Fahrenheit. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 
2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman do not believe that a 
requirement to have temperature measurement errors no greater than +/-
0.5 degrees Fahrenheit is reasonably achievable. AHRI, Morrison, and 
Goodman recommend that DOE specify an error of +/-0.9 degrees 
Fahrenheit, per the special limits of error of T-type thermocouples. 
(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 
at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3) Rheem stated that an allowable 
temperature measurement error would be +/-1 degree Fahrenheit, while 
Ingersoll Rand stated that the ASHRAE 103-2007 accuracy level should be 
maintained (i.e., 2 degrees Fahrenheit). (Rheem, No. 0035 
at pg. 5; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2)
    DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman that an 
allowable temperature measurement error of 0.5 [deg]F is 
not reasonable for thermocouples, which are the temperature measurement 
instruments typically used in ASHRAE 103. However, DOE finds that T-
type thermocouples can meet tighter tolerances than the allowable error 
of 2 [deg]F specified in ASHRAE 103. The test procedure 
established by this final rule specifies an allowable error of 0.75 [deg]F, which is consistent with the special limit of error 
for T-type thermocouples specified in ASHRAE 41.1 and referenced in 
ASHRAE 37. Consequently, manufacturers will be able to continue using 
thermocouples while errors in temperature measurements will be 
minimized.

H. Minimum Temperature Rise

    In the SNOPR, DOE requested comment on whether a minimum 
temperature rise of 18 [deg]F should be required. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 
2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman all believe that a minimum 
temperature rise is not required, but agree that a minimum temperature 
rise of 18 degrees Fahrenheit is reasonable. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; 
Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 4; Goodman, No. 
0037 at pg. 3) Rheem stated that a minimum temperature rise of 18 
degrees Fahrenheit could eliminate some furnaces with single speed 
blower motors from the marketplace. (Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 5)
    DOE agrees with AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, and Goodman that a minimum 
temperature rise of 18 [deg]F is reasonable. In addition, DOE expects 
that a significant majority of products are able to meet this minimum 
requirement. The test procedure established by this final rule includes 
a minimum temperature rise requirement of 18 [deg]F. Any manufacturer 
of products that cannot meet this requirement can apply for a test 
procedure waiver. Waivers could include alternative test methods that 
ensure a higher level of temperature measurement accuracy in lieu of 
the minimum temperature rise requirement.

I. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria

    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the following steady-state 
stabilization

[[Page 512]]

criteria. For testing furnace fans used in gas and oil furnaces, DOE 
proposed that steady-state conditions are attained as indicated by a 
temperature variation in three successive readings, taken 15 minutes 
apart, of not more than:
     1.5 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces 
equipped with draft diverters;
     2.5 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces 
equipped with either draft hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent 
systems; and
     0.5 [deg]F in the flue gas temperature for condensing 
furnaces.

For electric furnaces, DOE proposed that steady-state conditions are 
reached as indicated by a temperature variation of not more than 1 
[deg]F in the outlet temperature in four successive temperature 
readings taken 15 minutes apart. The proposed criteria for all product 
types are more stringent than the criteria specified in ASHRAE 103-
2007, which are incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure for 
furnaces. 78 FR 19617 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Morrison, Goodman, and Ingersoll Rand all believe 
that the steady-state stabilization criteria proposed by DOE are not 
reasonably achievable and will increase testing burden on manufacturers 
without significantly improving the accuracy of the results. 
Furthermore, they suggest that the current residential furnace 
stabilization criteria in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N are 
stringent enough for accuracy and repeatability purposes. (AHRI, No. 
0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 4; 
Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) 
Additionally, AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, and Morrison stated that a process 
that involved three temperature readings taken 15 minutes apart, 
instead of four, is more than adequate for electric furnaces and cold 
flow tests. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Rheem, 
No. 0035 at pg. 6; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5)
    Recent DOE test results confirm AHRI's, Lennox's, Morrison's, 
Goodman's, and Ingersoll Rand's comments that the steady-state 
stabilization criteria proposed in the SNOPR are not reasonably 
achievable. Therefore, the test procedure established by this final 
rule adopts the steady-state stabilization criteria in ASHRAE 103-2007 
(which are identical to those codified in 10 CFR Part 430, Subpart B, 
Appendix N as part of the DOE furnaces test procedure) for the parts of 
the test that involve firing a furnace burner or energizing electric 
heat resistance elements. For the parts of the test that do not require 
firing a burner or energizing electric heat resistance elements (i.e., 
cold flow tests), DOE likewise found that the steady-state 
stabilization criteria proposed in the SNOPR, which are based on outlet 
temperature variation, are not reasonably achievable. Outlet 
temperature is sensitive to changes in ambient temperature, which is 
highly variable in ASHRAE 103-2007 compliant test facilities. To 
address this issue, the test procedure established by this final rule 
specifies steady-state conditions for cold-flow tests based on the 
difference in temperature between the outlet airflow temperature and 
the ambient temperature. During testing, DOE collected over 30 minutes 
per test of time series inlet, outlet, and ambient temperature data for 
over 10 cold-flow tests. DOE observed a maximum difference in 
temperature between the outlet airflow and ambient of 2.7 [deg]F. DOE 
believes this is a reasonable threshold for determining steady-state 
conditions for cold-flow tests. The test procedure established by this 
final rule specifies that steady-state conditions for cold-flow tests 
are indicated by a temperature rise variation in three successive 
readings, taken 15 minutes apart, of not more than 3 [deg]F to address 
this issue.

J. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature Gradients

    In the SNOPR, DOE proposed to specify the use of a mixer, as 
depicted in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37, which references ANSI/ASHRAE 
Standard 41.1-1986 (RA 2001), to minimize outlet flow temperature 
gradients if the temperature difference between any two thermocouples 
of the outlet air temperature grid is greater than 1.5 [deg]F. 78 FR 
19617 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, and Ingersoll Rand are all 
opposed to using a mixer due to their effect on external static 
pressure. They also stated that mixers are never found in the field. 
(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 4; Rheem, No. 0035 at 
pg. 6; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5; Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 3; 
Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) Furthermore, AHRI and Morrison 
believe that the air temperature can be adequately measured by the 
thermocouple arrangements that are specified in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 
103-1993. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5)
    DOE recognizes interested party concerns that using an air mixer is 
inconsistent with the current DOE residential furnaces test set up. 
Consequently, the ESP of the test setup with an air mixer installed may 
be higher than the ESP at which furnace manufacturers typically test to 
comply with the DOE test procedure for residential furnaces. DOE is not 
aware of any negative impacts on the results of the DOE test procedure 
for residential furnaces of gradients in the outlet air temperature. 
The test procedure established by this final rule does not require the 
use of an air mixer for these reasons. In addition, the outlet 
temperature used to calculate airflow, and ultimately FER, is the 
average of the outlet temperature measurements of the thermocouples in 
the outlet thermocouple grid required by this test procedure.

K. Certification Testing

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed that the existing sampling plans used for 
furnaces be adopted and applied to measures of energy consumption for 
furnace fans. 77 FR at 28691 (May 15, 2012). AHRI and a number of 
manufacturers commented that the furnace sampling plan is too stringent 
for furnace fans and that DOE should use sampling plan criteria 
consistent with the DOE test procedure for residential central air 
conditioners (CAC). (Allied Air, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at 
p. 225; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 25 at p. 11; Ingersoll 
Rand, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 
8.) UTC explained that the CAC sampling plan requirements are more 
appropriate because the components of the furnace fan (i.e. electric 
motors, blower wheels and blower housings) are more analogous to an air 
conditioner or refrigerator than to the combustion process of a fuel-
fired furnace. (UTC, No. 10 at p. 4.) DOE agreed with interested 
parties that the furnace fan electrical input power measurements and 
external static pressure measurements that would be required by the 
test procedure proposed in the SNOPR are different and inherently more 
variable than the measurements required for AFUE. Consequently, DOE 
proposed in the SNOPR to adopt a sampling plan that requires any 
represented value of FER to be greater than or equal to the higher of: 
the mean of the sample or the upper 90 percent (one-tailed) confidence 
limit divided by 1.05, as specified in the sampling plan for CAC 
products. 78 FR 19718 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, Ingersoll Rand, and NPCC/ 
NEEA agree with DOE's proposal to adopt a sampling plan that requires 
any represented value of FER to be greater than or equal to the higher 
of the mean

[[Page 513]]

of the sample or the upper 90 percent (one-tailed) confidence limit 
divided by 1.05. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Lennox, No. 0031 at p. 5; 
Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 7; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5; Goodman, No. 
0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 3; NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 
at pg. 5)
    DOE's testing experience confirms that the furnace fan electrical 
input power measurements and external static pressure measurements that 
are required by the test procedure established by this rule are more 
variable than the measurements required for AFUE. Consequently, as was 
proposed in the SNOPR, the test procedure established by this final 
rule adopts a sampling plan that requires any represented value of FER 
to be greater than or equal to the higher of the mean of the sample or 
the upper 90 percent (one-tailed) confidence limit divided by 1.05, as 
specified in the sampling plan for CAC products. 78 FR 19718 (April 2, 
2013)
    NPCC/NEEA and CA IOU urge DOE to require manufacturers to certify 
individual mode FERs. (CA IOU, No. 0032 at p. 3) NPCC/NEEA claims there 
is no additional testing burden associated with this proposal, even 
though they recognize some manufacturer reluctance to certify multiple 
values. NPCC/NEEA believes the importance and value of the transparency 
afforded by certifying the individual mode values far outweighs any 
concerns the manufacturers might have with regard to certifying the 
components of a single FER rating metric. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 
5) WI-DOA stated that furnace manufacturers should be required to 
provide fan tables for airflow and corresponding watts with static 
pressure up to 1.20 in. wc. (WI-DOA, No. 0007 at pg. 1) DOE is not 
adopting certification requirements for furnace fans in this 
rulemaking. DOE proposed in the furnace fan standards rulemaking that 
manufacturers be required to certify the single FER rating metric, 
along with some intermediary values that provide DOE details about the 
values used when the manufacturer conducted its own testing. DOE will 
consider these comments on certification requirements for furnace fans 
along with any others submitted in response to the proposal in the 
standards rulemaking. Should commenters have additional details about 
why individual mode values are important and would be useful to 
consumers, they may provide additional comments to the standards docket 
(Docket Number: EERE-2010-BT-STD-0011).
    AHRI, Morrison, and Ingersoll Rand added that the sampling plan for 
the DOE enforcement testing of residential furnaces employs a statistic 
that is based on a 95 percent two-tailed probability level with degrees 
of freedom (n1-1), where n1 is the total number 
of tests. AHRI, Morrison, Goodman, and Ingersoll Rand believe that DOE 
must ensure that the confidence limits with respect to the 
certification and enforcement testing of the FER metric are the same. 
(AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 5; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 5; Goodman, No. 
0037 at pg. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 3) The sampling plan for 
certification testing utilizes a one-sided confidence limit, which 
ensures that the rating used by manufacturers is supported by the test 
data they conducted on a given basic model and allows the manufacturers 
the option to conservatively rate if they desire. DOE uses a one-sided 
confidence limit in determination of ratings because it is interested 
in ensuring consumers get a level of performance for a given basic 
model that is at least as good as what is being represented by 
manufacturers. In other words, DOE is primarily concerned with 
preventing overrating. On the other hand, the Department employs a two-
sided sampling plan for enforcement testing with a 95-percent 
probability limit for all high-volume covered products and equipment 
because it is interested in the variability of all units within the 
sample when considering compliance against the standard. DOE is looking 
at the distribution of values within the sample as compared to the 
Federal standard. While DOE is open to further investigating whether 
the sampling plans for enforcement testing should be changed, 
specifically whether DOE should move to a one-sided probability limit 
for assessing compliance with standards, DOE is declining to do so in 
this rulemaking. DOE is accepting data which attempts to characterize 
the variability, both the testing and manufacturing, of furnace fan 
basic models.

L. Alternative Efficiency Determination Method (AEDM)

    AHRI, Rheem, Morrison, Goodman, and Lennox believe the option of 
employing an alternative efficiency determination method to determine 
FER must be made available instead of mandating that a minimum of two 
samples be tested in order to achieve DOE certification. (AHRI, No. 
0034 at pg. 2; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2; 
Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 4; Lennox, No. 0012 at pg. 5) In response to 
the NOPR, Mortex Products, Inc. commented that it is concerned about 
the testing burden and cost for small manufacturers, and requested that 
DOE prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for the rulemaking that 
would relax the testing burden or combine testing requirements with an 
AEDM so that all models need not be tested. (Mortex, No. 0018 at pg. 3) 
Morrison, Unico, and AHRI echoed Mortex's comments, requesting DOE 
provide the option of employing an AEDM. (Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 8; 
Unico, No. 0015 at pg. 6; AHRI, No. 0016 at pg. 9)
    At this time, DOE is not adopting provisions that allow for the 
ratings of furnace fans to be established based on simulations or 
computer models. DOE currently does not allow the use of AEDMs for 
residential products, with the exception of central air conditioners 
and heat pumps. DOE believes that the number of furnace fan basic 
models that a manufacturer will need to test and certify will be 
significantly smaller than the number of combinations of split-system 
air conditioners and heat pumps that are currently allowed to be rated 
with an alternative rating method. While DOE is not opposed to 
considering AEDMs for furnace fans in the future, it is declining to do 
so in this rulemaking until manufacturers provide DOE with evidence 
that alternative rating methods are needed. DOE recognizes Mortex's 
concerns regarding differential impacts on small manufacturers. DOE 
conducted a regulatory flexibility analysis as part of the NOPR of the 
furnace fans energy conservation standards rulemaking to assess impacts 
on small manufacturers, as Mortex requested. 78 FR 64132-64134 (October 
25, 2013). Further, DOE adopted burden reducing measures to the test 
procedure during the rulemaking in response to manufacturers' comments 
(e.g., DOE aligned the test procedure established by this final rule 
with the DOE test procedure for furnaces). Even in the absence of the 
ability to rate furnace fans with AEDMs, only basic models of furnace 
fans are required to be tested and rated in accordance with the test 
procedure established by this final rule. Manufacturers may group 
individual furnace fan models into a basic model if they have 
essentially identical physical, functional, and electrical 
characteristics and are represented by the same FER. For example, only 
one model of a series of electric furnace fan models that only differ 
by electric resistance heat capacity is required to be tested in 
accordance with the test procedure established by this rule, if the 
capacity variation does not include design changes that alter furnace 
fan

[[Page 514]]

performance as measured by the test procedure established by this rule.

M. FER Modifications and Alternatives

    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to require measurements in the absolute 
maximum airflow-control setting, which DOE found is most often 
designated for cooling. DOE also proposed to specify that the reference 
system ESP be set in the maximum airflow-control setting to avoid 
rating performance above the proposed reference system ESP values. 77 
FR 28683 (May 15, 2012). Interested parties commented on the NOPR that 
the maximum airflow-control setting is not always designated for 
cooling. In the SNOPR, DOE did not change the airflow-control settings 
in which it proposed to require measurements nor its proposal to set 
the reference system ESP in the maximum airflow-control setting. 78 FR 
19608 (April 2, 2013)
    Interested parties stated that the maximum airflow-control setting 
is not always designated for cooling. Goodman disagrees with DOE's 
comment that the maximum airflow-control setting is often designated 
for cooling operation. They stated that a single furnace capacity (e.g. 
60,000 Btu/h) is often offered with more than one air moving option 
(``drive''), and the heating speed tap will vary depending upon the 
drive provided. A 60,000 Btu/h furnace for northern applications may 
have a 3-ton drive with ``high'' speed tap for heating, while a 60,000 
Btu/h furnace for southern applications may have a 4-ton drive with 
``medium'' speed tap for heating. (Goodman, No. 0037 at pg. 2) Rheem 
added that the assumption that the cooling speed will be the highest 
speed is a worst case assumption. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 5) During the 
NOPR public meeting and in written comments, Ingersoll Rand noted that 
if the maximum airflow speed is multiplied by cooling hours and the 
heating speed is higher than the cooling speed, then the FER equation 
is incorrect. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0023 at pg. 124) Ingersoll Rand 
proposed that when a furnace's highest air flow setting is used for 
heating, that the test procedure and calculations allow QMax 
to equal QHeat and allow the cooling speed energy to be 
determined at maximum cooling speed tap as specified in the 
installation and operating instructions. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at 
pg. 2) Ingersoll Rand stated that many furnaces will run appropriately 
with the blower set to the maximum speed setting. They proposed that 
for those units the airflow, QMax be determined directly 
from testing at the maximum airflow setting. Ingersoll Rand went on to 
state that the DOE proposed method of testing at the heating speed to 
determine QHeat and using a multiplier to calculate 
QMax should be an optional method for furnaces that cannot 
be operated or run appropriately at the maximum airflow setting. 
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 0038 at pg. 2) Rheem added that the assumption 
that the heating speed can be determined by an assumed system curve 
must be adjusted by the safety requirement that the furnace operate 
within prescribed temperature rise range that is listed on each rating 
plate. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 5)
    UTC agreed with DOE that the maximum airflow-control setting on a 
furnace is typically referred to as the cooling speed. (UTC, No. 0010 
at pg. 1)
    DOE understands that, in some cases, the maximum airflow-control 
setting is designated for heating, not cooling. Even though DOE finds 
that the maximum airflow-control setting is most often designated for 
cooling, the test procedure established by this final rule specifies 
that measurements be taken in the absolute maximum airflow-control 
setting, not the default cooling airflow-control setting to accommodate 
both scenarios as Ingersoll Rand recommends. Specifying that 
measurements be taken in the maximum airflow-control setting ensures 
that the full range of fan operation is accounted for in the FER metric 
regardless of whether the maximum airflow-control setting is designated 
for heating or cooling. The test procedure established in this final 
rule has specific provisions for units for which the maximum airflow-
control setting is a heating setting. For such units, the test 
procedure established by this notice specifies that:
     The burner or electric resistance heat elements of the 
HVAC product in which the furnace fan is integrated shall be firing/
energized while setting the initial conditions (i.e., achieving steady-
state at the specified reference system ESP in the maximum airflow-
control setting).
     airflow for the maximum airflow-control setting shall be 
calculated using temperature rise measured in the maximum airflow-
control setting (as Ingersoll Rand suggests) because the HVAC product 
will be producing heat. Consequently, calculating airflow based on 
temperature rise in an intermediate airflow-control setting that is 
designated for heating and using the airflow adjustment equation \5\ to 
determine maximum airflow (as is specified for products for which the 
maximum airflow-control setting is only a cooling setting) is 
unnecessary. This approach avoids the uncertainty inherent in using the 
airflow adjustment equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The airflow adjustment equation can be found in the 
regulatory text of this notice and the furnace fan test procedure 
SNOPR published on April 2, 2013. 78 FR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EMax shall be measured while the HVAC product 
is producing heat in the maximum airflow-control setting and steady-
state conditions have been met. For single-stage units, EMax 
and EHeat are equivalent because the maximum airflow-control 
setting and the heating airflow-control setting in which measurements 
are specified to be made are the same. Consequently, the same value is 
used for both variables in the FER equation. For multi-stage units, 
EMax and EHeat are not equivalent because the 
maximum airflow-control setting and the heating airflow-control setting 
(the default low heat airflow control setting) in which measurements 
are specified to be made are not the same. EHeat is required 
to be measured in the reduced heat airflow-control setting.
    Contrary to Ingersoll Rand's recommendation, the test procedure 
established by this final rule does not require firing in the maximum 
airflow-control setting if that setting is not designated for heating 
(even if it is possible to do so). Instead, the test procedure 
established by this final rule requires firing in the default heating 
airflow-control setting. Requiring firing in the maximum airflow-
control setting in addition would result in increased testing burden. 
Also contrary to Ingersoll Rand's recommendation, the test procedure 
established by this final rule does not allow fan energy for cooling to 
be determined at an intermediate airflow-control setting (i.e., the 
highest airflow-control setting designated for cooling as specified in 
the installation and operating instructions that is not the absolute 
maximum airflow-control setting). DOE finds that manufacturers are not 
as limited in the setting they designate for cooling as they are by 
safety concerns and design constraints for designating heating 
settings. Consequently, manufacturers could designate the lowest 
airflow-control setting for cooling to produce favorable FER values, 
resulting in a potential loophole in the test method.
    In the NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate the HCR to adjust the 
heating operating hours in both the numerator (i.e. estimated annual 
energy consumption) and denominator (i.e. normalization factor of total 
operating hours times airflow in the maximum airflow-control setting) 
of the FER equation. 77 FR at 28701 (May 15, 2012). In the SNOPR, DOE 
revised its

[[Page 515]]

proposed FER equation by proposing to incorporate HCR in the numerator, 
and eliminate it from the denominator. DOE proposed this revision after 
finding that this modification results in FER values that more 
accurately reflect the relative estimated annual energy consumption of 
multi-stage and modulating units compared to single-stage units. 78 FR 
19609 (April 2, 2013)
    AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, and Morrison oppose DOE's proposal to modify 
the FER equation by eliminating the HCR from the denominator and 
replacing it with 830. They argue that this change will penalize multi-
stage and modulating furnaces (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 2; Lennox, No. 
0031 at p. 5; Rheem, No. 0035 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2) 
Goodman also echoed AHRI's comment in regards to the FER equation, but 
added that the cooling hours should not be included in FER. (Goodman, 
No. 0037 at pg. 5)
    DOE finds that when HCR is included in the numerator and 
denominator of the FER equation (as AHRI, Lennox, Rheem, Morrison and 
Goodman recommend), FER comparisons between multi-stage and single-
stage units results in an estimated reduction in FER of approximately 
30 percent when adding multi-staging to a product with a constant-
torque BPM motor. DOE data shows that the estimated annual energy 
consumption, as calculated for the FER metric, is 15 percent less for 
multi-stage products compared to similar single-stage products. DOE 
finds that eliminating HCR from the denominator of the FER equation 
results in an estimated reduction in FER of 15 percent, which is more 
consistent with estimated annual energy consumption comparisons. 
Consequently, the test procedure established by this final rule 
excludes HCR from the denominator of the FER equation as proposed in 
the SNOPR. As stated in the SNOPR, cooling hours are included pursuant 
to EPCA because electricity used to circulate air through duct work 
occurs in cooling and constant circulation modes, not just in heating 
mode. 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)
    Interested parties suggested modifications and alternatives to the 
units of FER and how its factors are weighted. ASAP, ACEEE, NCLC, and 
NRDC recommended that DOE incorporate a time weighted airflow value 
(i.e., weighted for time spent in cooling, heating, and circulation 
modes) instead of choosing the maximum airflow. (ACEEE et al., No. 0013 
at pg. 5) Unico suggested that a preferred metric to FER would be a 
weighted average watts/cfm for all modes of operation to prevent a 
design push to a maximum airflow, where the efficiency is measured. 
(Unico, No. 0015 at pg. 3) NRCan stated that normalizing the FER rating 
to produce watts/cfm is difficult for stakeholders to understand when 
compared to having a kWh metric. (NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 6) Conversely, 
ACEEE stated that a watts/cfm metric is better than a kWh/year metric 
due to the number of assumptions and extrapolations required to 
determine annual energy consumption. (ACEEE, No. 0023 at pg. 198) 
During the NOPR public meeting, NEEA stated operating hours should be 
used to weight average fan efficiency watts/cfm and not the energy use 
metric because annual energy use will vary more than the efficiency of 
the fan. (NEEA, No. 0023 at pg. 190)
    DOE considered FER metric variations similar to those suggested by 
ASAP, ACEEE, NRDC, NRCan, NEEA and Unico. The FER metric established by 
this final rule is not normalized by a time-weighted airflow value 
instead of the maximum airflow, as ACEEE et al. suggests, because the 
additional measurements required to determine airflow in additional 
airflow-control settings would increase test burden. The metric 
recommended by NEEA would also require added burden to measure airflow 
in additional airflow-control settings. DOE disagrees with Unico that 
FER will incentivize manufacturers to only optimize performance in the 
maximum airflow-control setting because FER is determined based on 
furnace fan electrical input measurements in multiple airflow-control 
settings across the entire range of expected operation. DOE disagrees 
with NRCan that interested parties will have difficulty understanding a 
metric in units of watts per 1000 cfm. Interested parties are familiar 
with discussing fan efficiency in terms of watts per 1000 cfm, as this 
is how fan performance is estimated in the alternative rating method 
for coil-only CAC products.
    Interested parties commented on DOE's estimated national average 
operating hours and how these estimates are used in determining FER. 
Ingersoll Rand questions the value of using operating hours because 
those estimates come from such a small section of the country, and 
suggested evaluating performance of the appliance based on the end 
condition, removing any dependence on location. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 
0023 at pg. 198) Rheem stated that it does not agree that DOE has the 
authority to set an energy conservation standard that weights multiple 
metrics (45% heating mode, 34% cooling mode, 21% circulation mode) to 
create a single FER for furnace fans. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 3) ASAP, 
ACEEE, NCLC, and NRDC strongly support DOE's proposal to incorporate 
multiple measures of power consumption into the certifiable rating 
metric, including heating, cooling, and constant circulation modes. 
(ACEEE et al., No. 0013 at pg. 2) NRCan, NPCC, and NEEA suggested that 
DOE consider developing fan efficiency ratings for different climatic 
conditions which would entail development of different assumptions 
regarding the operating hours in each mode, mimicking DOE's rating 
procedures for heat pumps. (NRCan, No. 0011 at pg. 1 and NPCC/ NEEA, 
No. 0022 at pg. 7) Goodman stated that the FER metric does not 
accurately portray to the consumer what the relative energy consumption 
would be as applied in different regions and in different applications. 
According to Goodman, weighting energy consumption on a ``national 
average'' basis can potentially cause consumers in either northern or 
southern regions to choose a product that has a lower FER rating, but 
actually consumes more energy for their locale. (Goodman, No. 0017 at 
pg. 5) Goodman stated that a product with a higher SEER, HSPF or AFUE 
metric will consume less energy annually regardless of climate region 
than a different product with a lower SEER, HSPF or AFUE. However, this 
is not the case with the FER metric. (Goodman, No. 0017 at pg. 2)
    DOE acknowledges the concerns of Ingersoll Rand, NRCan, and Goodman 
that using national average operating hours may not result in ratings 
that are reflective of furnace fan energy consumption in all climate 
regions. However, the residential furnace fan energy conservation 
standard will result in a national standard, not a regional standard. 
Consequently, the metric established by this final rule is proportional 
to the estimated national average annual energy consumption of furnace 
fans. As detailed in the NOPR, DOE's estimated national average furnace 
fan cooling and heating hours are based on data sources that include 
inputs from all U.S. climate regions. 77 FR 28680 (May 15, 2012) DOE 
recognizes that its estimated national average constant circulation 
hours are based on limited data from a single climatic region. As 
described in the NOPR, DOE made adjustments to its national average 
constant circulation hours estimate to account for climate region 
biases. 77 FR 28683 (May 15, 2012) Interested parties did not provide 
any additional data with which DOE could revise its estimate for 
national

[[Page 516]]

average constant circulation hours. DOE disagrees with Rheem that DOE 
does not have the authority to issue standards based on a weighted 
metric. EPCA does not contain language limiting DOE's authority to 
determine the appropriate metric. Accordingly, determining the nature 
of a technical measurement is within the scope of authority delegated 
to the agency.
    AGA recommends that DOE include a secondary FER that would convert 
the primary FER using the extended site measure of energy consumption 
until DOE/EERE can consider and complete a transition to the use of 
full-fuel-cycle measure of energy consumption. The addition of a 
secondary energy descriptor to capture full-fuel-cycle efficiency would 
be in line with the general response to the National Research Council 
(NRC) recommendations on appliance efficiency ratings that would also 
be applicable to ``furnace fans.'' (AGA, No. 0040 at pg. 1)
    DOE will continue to set energy conservation standards for covered 
products based on energy consumption at the point-of-use, as required 
by EPCA, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(4)-(6), 6311(3)(4), (18)) 
Consequently, DOE does not require a secondary FER that captures full-
fuel-cycle energy consumption. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended 
at 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). However, DOE used FFC measures of 
energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions in the national 
impact analysis and environmental analysis for the furnace fan energy 
conservation standard rulemaking. 78 FR 64127 (October 25, 2013)
    Interested parties commented that the rating metric should be tied 
to heating performance and capacity. Taitem Engineering, PC is 
concerned about a rating metric that is based on power demand per unit 
of airflow. They recommend a metric based on power demand per delivered 
unit of heat be used. (Taitem, No. 0033 at p. 1) Unico and Morrison 
added that since furnace-type products are purchased for their heating 
capacity, an artificial mechanism like watts/cfm should not be used. 
(Unico, No. 0023 at pg. 94; Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 113) Morrison 
noted that the metric proposed in the NOPR moves too far away from end-
user application, and would prefer the metric was tied to heating 
performance and capacity of the unit so that the energy descriptor is 
useful to consumers. (Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 133) Unico suggested 
that a watts/cfm metric would make a product's efficiency look worse 
than it actually is compared to using a BTU output comparison. (Unico, 
No. 0023 at pg. 112)
    DOE recognizes that a metric based on power demand per unit of 
heat, as suggested by Taitem, Unico and Morrison, could be useful. 
However, furnace fans consume electricity to circulate air through duct 
work in modes that are not for heating (i.e., cooling and constant 
circulation). FER accounts for energy consumption in heating and non-
heating modes and is therefore, a more appropriate metric for this test 
procedure. FER, as described in section II, is the rating metric for 
the test procedure established by this final rule.
    Pertaining to the rating metric, AHRI and Morrison commented that 
the note under Appendix AA to Subpart B of Part 430 on page 19625 of 
the SNOPR should be revised to clarify that it pertains to the FER 
rating metric. (AHRI, No. 0034 at pg. 2; Morrison, No. 0036 at pg. 2)
    DOE recognizes that furnace fan manufacturers may already include 
raw fan energy use at various operating conditions in product 
literature. DOE also realizes that furnace fan manufacturers use fan 
energy metrics other than FER to report and make representations of fan 
energy consumption and efficiency. Pursuant to EPCA, manufacturers of 
covered products must use the applicable test procedure as the basis 
for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable 
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA and for making 
representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 
6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) DOE's regulations allow for representations 
and reporting of raw fan energy consumption in various airflow-control 
settings and at varying ESP in addition to FER. While DOE is not 
including fan energy consumption for individual functions of operation 
(i.e., cooling, heating, and constant circulation) in the certification 
requirements for this rule, manufacturers can use these representations 
as long as they are made in accordance with the test procedure 
established by this rule. In regards to other metrics, manufacturers 
may continue using the annual auxiliary electrical energy consumption 
(Eae) metric as specified by the DOE furnace test procedure as long as 
it is reported in conjunction with FER once compliance with FER is 
required. Manufacturers cannot use any other metrics to make 
representations about furnace fan energy consumption or efficiency 
beginning 180 days after publication of this final rule in the Federal 
Register. DOE understands that current ENERGY STAR specifications are 
based on a different metric, e, which is furnace fan energy consumption 
as a percentage of total furnace energy consumption. Since 
manufacturers are prohibited from making representations of furnace fan 
efficiency using a metric other than FER after 180 days, DOE will work 
with EPA to transition the ENERGY STAR program.
    During the NOPR public meeting, both AHRI and Allied Air stated 
that they feel that DOE should consider adopting the EISA eb 
metric because it allows for relative electrical performance comparison 
of furnace fans without imposing unnecessary burden of air flow 
measurement at additional external static pressures.\6\ (AHRI, No. 0023 
at pg. 16; Allied Air, No. 0023 at pg. 129) On the other hand, ACEEE 
stated that they would be very uncomfortable with consideration of 
using eb because eb was originally developed as a 
threshold mechanism for incentive programs that wanted to recognize 
efficient air handlers. (ACEEE, No. 0023 at pg. 125) In more recent 
written comments in response to the SNOPR, AHRI (with the support of 
manufacturers) proposed an alternative test method that included the 
use of FER as proposed by DOE in the SNOPR as the rating metric. (AHRI, 
No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 
1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ``eb'' metric is a ratio of the electrical energy 
consumed by the furnace fan to the total fuel and electrical energy 
consumed by the furnace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that BE, e, and eb are less appropriate 
than FER, because they are based on measurements at one operating point 
for units with single-stage heating or measurements at two operating 
points for units with multi-stage or modulating heating. These metrics 
do not account for operation in cooling or constant circulation modes. 
Also, these metrics are inappropriate because they are measured at ESPs 
that are not representative of field conditions.

N. Air Leakage

    NPCC and NEEA are concerned about the impacts of air handler 
cabinet leakage on energy efficiency and health and safety.\7\ NPCC/
NEEA field testing has shown that cabinet leakage can occur on the 
order of one to five percent. According to NPCC/NEEA, the appropriate 
amount of air to measure is the amount of air excluding cabinet air

[[Page 517]]

leakage in the process of rating the efficiency with which air is 
delivered to a residence. NPCC/NEEA strongly recommends that DOE 
require testing of air handlers using ANSI/ASHRAE 193-2010, and either 
adjusting the air delivered by an air handler accordingly before 
calculating FER (and therefore the rated efficiency of the air 
handler), or providing a separate rating for cabinet leakage, so that 
consumers and contractors can choose the best-performing products for 
the market. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 4) CA IOU also recommends the 
adoption of ASHRAE 193-2010 for measuring air leakage, which should 
also be incorporated into the FER. (CA IOU, No. 0032 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ According to NPCC/NEEA, air leakage is also a matter of 
health and safety when an air handler is located in a garage because 
contaminants often found in garages are pulled in by the air handler 
and delivered to the home. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 0039 at pg. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE disagrees with NPCC, NEEA, and CA IOU that the test procedure 
established by this final rule should incorporate ANSI/ASHRAE 193-2010 
to account for cabinet air leakage. The test procedure established by 
this final rule calculates airflow such that the results do not include 
any air that may have leaked from the cabinet upstream of the heat 
exchanger. This air will not have absorbed any significant amount of 
heat before leaking from the cabinet. Hence the heat addition will 
cause a greater temperature rise in the remaining air that does absorb 
heat from the heat exchanger, and for which temperature is measured by 
the discharge temperature sensors. Hence, assuming that most of the 
leaked air absorbs a negligible amount of heat before leaking out of 
the cabinet, the measurement already takes the air leakage into 
account. Air that does not pass over the heat exchanger (which would 
include air leaked through the cabinet upstream of the heat exchanger, 
or air that passes near potential leakage gaps in the cabinet casing 
surrounding, but distant from, the heat exchanger) is not included in 
the equation.

O. Brushless Permanent Magnet Motor Issues

    In the NOPR, DOE requested comment on whether independent test labs 
would have difficulty selecting and operating a furnace fan in the 
airflow-control settings DOE proposed in the NOPR. 77 FR 28697 May 15, 
2012 UTC, Rheem, and Morrison confirmed that independent test labs will 
need additional guidance on motor control and recommends that the 
independent test laboratory be allowed to confer with the individual 
manufacturers on particular models. (UTC, No. 0010 at pg. 6; Rheem, No. 
0025 at pg. 9; Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 7) DOE expects that 
independent test labs would have difficulty selecting and operating 
furnace fans in combinations of airflow-control and heating/cooling/
circulation settings for which they are not intended to operate (i.e., 
firing the burner while the circulation fan operates in an airflow-
control setting designated only for cooling). The test procedure 
established by this final rule does not specify combinations of 
settings for which a product is not designed. Consequently, independent 
test labs will be able to achieve operating settings required by this 
rule without guidance from manufacturers other than the product 
literature that is shipped with the product.

P. Manufacturer Burden

    In response to the NOPR, AHRI stated that it found the manufacturer 
testing burden to be high since it includes AFUE, standby and off mode 
requirements, FER rating at different static pressures outside of 
ASHRAE 103, airflow measurements, as well as Canada's new and different 
furnace fan metric. (AHRI, No. 0023 at pg. 238) Morrison believes the 
DOE estimated testing cost of 2% of the manufacturer selling price in 
the NOPR does not account for the cumulative regulatory burden 
associated with the AFUE, standby and off mode, and fan efficiency. 
(Morrison, No. 0021 at pg. 9) Additionally, Morrison believes that the 
test burden of the NOPR proposal will be increased because this is a 
second static test point in addition to what is already required under 
the DOE AFUE testing. (Morrison, No. 0023 at pg. 152) Rheem commented 
that they do not currently have airflow data to rate current furnace 
models using the proposed metric, and it is not reasonable to assume 
manufacturers already have this data. (Rheem, No. 0025 at pg. 3) Lennox 
stated that due to variability in motor performance, manufacturing and 
testing, more than two units may need to be tested for some models. The 
additional testing time, engineering time to review and convert data 
into the FER calculation, along with time required to statistically 
develop the FER rating and maintain the required DOE documentation, are 
additional burdens. (Lennox, No. 0012 at pg. 4) Since the SNOPR, AHRI 
(with the support of a number of manufacturers) proposed a method of 
calculating airflow based on temperature rise, which would 
significantly reduce test burden because it can be measured using 
procedures and a test setup consistent with those used for the DOE test 
procedure for furnaces (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; 
Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3).
    DOE realizes that the cumulative effect of multiple regulations on 
an industry may significantly increase the burden faced by 
manufacturers that need to comply with regulations and testing 
requirements from different organizations and levels of government. DOE 
considers the cumulative cost of multiple regulations on manufacturers 
in the cumulative regulatory burden section in the standards NOPR 
published on October 25, 2013. 78 FR 64103 DOE agrees that the key 
concept embodied in the alternative method suggested by AHRI and 
manufacturers (using the AFUE test set up and temperature rise to 
determine airflow) provides reasonable FER values at a significantly 
reduced burden to manufacturers. The test procedure established by this 
final rule adopts a modified version of the test method presented by 
AHRI as the furnace fan test procedure to minimize test burden.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test 
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB).

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's Web site: http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
    DOE reviewed today's rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies

[[Page 518]]

published on February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. DOE has concluded that the 
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The factual basis for this certification is 
as follows:
    The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a 
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs fewer than 
a threshold number of workers as specified in 13 CFR part 121. The 
threshold values set forth in these regulations use size standards and 
codes established by the North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) that are available at: http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS 
classification for 333415, which applies to Air-Conditioning and Warm 
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration 
Equipment Manufacturing (this includes furnace fan manufacturers) is 
750 employees.\8\ DOE reviewed AHRI's Directory of Certified Product 
Performance for Residential Furnaces and Boilers (2009),\9\ the ENERGY 
STAR Product Databases for Gas and Oil Furnaces (May 15, 2009),\10\ the 
California Energy Commission's Appliance Database for Residential 
Furnaces and Boilers,\11\ and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's 
Qualifying Furnace and Boiler List (April 2, 2009).\12\ From this 
review, DOE identified 14 small businesses within the furnace fan 
industry. DOE does not believe the test procedure described in this 
rule would represent a substantial burden to any manufacturer, 
including small manufacturers, as explained below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.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).
    \9\ The Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
Directory of Certified Product Performance (June 2009) (Available 
at: http://www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx).
    \10\ The 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).
    \11\ The California Energy Commission, Appliance Database for 
Residential Furnaces and Boilers (2009) (Available at: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspx).
    \12\ Consortium of Energy Efficiency, Qualifying Furnace and 
Boiler List (April 2, 2009) (Available at: http://www.ceedirectory.org/ceedirectory/pages/cee/ ceeDirectoryInfo.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule establishes test procedures that would be used for 
representations of energy use and to test compliance with new energy 
conservation standards, which are being developed in a concurrent 
rulemaking, for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking. 
This notice establishes new test procedures for active mode testing for 
all such products. The rule will require a modified version of the 
testing methods prescribed in a public submission from AHRI (the trade 
organization that represents manufacturers of furnace fans). The AHRI 
proposal recommends test methods that are purposely aligned with the 
current DOE test procedure for furnaces in order to minimize test 
burden. (AHRI, No. 26); Appendix N of Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. As 
discussed above, this would not represent a substantial burden to any 
furnace fan manufacturer, small or large. According to AHRI, its 
proposed method would result in an 80 to 90 percent reduction in test 
burden compared to the test procedure proposed by DOE in the NOPR. AHRI 
attributed this reduction primarily to manufacturers not having to 
acquire or use any test equipment beyond the equipment that is already 
used to conduct the test method specified in the DOE furnace test 
procedure (i.e. the AFUE test setup). (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) Mortex, a 
small manufacturer, stated that measuring airflow and electrical power 
input at a few more airflow-control settings as a part of the existing 
AFUE test procedure should not require any capital outlay, unlike the 
method proposed by DOE in the NOPR. (Mortex, No. 18 at p. 2.) DOE's 
modifications to AHRI's approach will not require equipment beyond what 
is currently used to perform the AFUE test. Therefore, DOE expects no 
additional cost as the result of the new test procedure.
    DOE also expects that the time and cost to conduct testing 
according to the proposed test procedure will not be significantly 
burdensome. During discussions with manufacturers, DOE received 
feedback that the time to test a single unit according to the AHRI 
method would be 30 to 60 percent less relative to using the procedure 
DOE proposed in the NOPR. Goodman performed tests according to both 
DOE's NOPR test procedure proposal and AHRI's suggested method and 
found that testing time is reduced by almost 60 percent using AHRI's 
method. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3.) Rheem also conducted tests according 
to both procedures and stated that the time to test a single-stage 
furnace was reduced from 4 hours to 45 minutes by using the AHRI 
method. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.) Assuming that the labor rate for a 
given manufacturer would be the same regardless of test method, DOE 
expects that the cost to conduct a test would also be reduced by 30 to 
60 percent. DOE estimated that conducting a test according to its NOPR 
proposed test procedure would cost a small manufacturer $2.30 per unit 
shipped. This estimate is largely based on DOE's experience with third-
party test lab labor rates for fan testing. 77 FR at 28691 (May 15, 
2012). A 30 percent reduction would yield a conservative cost estimate 
of $1.61 per unit shipped to conduct a test according to AHRI's method. 
DOE does not expect that its modifications to the AHRI method would 
result in additional costs to conduct a test. DOE finds that the 
selling price for HVAC products that incorporate furnace fans ranges 
from approximately $400 to $4,000. Therefore, the added cost of testing 
according to DOE's test procedure would be less than one percent of the 
manufacturer selling price (and lower than 0.1 percent in some cases).
    For these reasons, DOE certifies that the test procedure 
established by this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 
prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE 
will provide its certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    There is currently no information collection requirement related to 
the test procedure for furnace fans. In the event that DOE proposes an 
energy conservation standard with which manufacturers must demonstrate 
compliance, or otherwise proposes to require the collection of 
information derived from the testing of furnace fans according to this 
test procedure, DOE will seek OMB approval of such information 
collection requirement.
    Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their 
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standard. 10 
CFR 429.12. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their 
products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any 
amendments adopted for that test procedure. See 10 CFR 429.13.
    DOE established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for certain covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and

[[Page 519]]

recordkeeping was subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement was approved by OMB 
under OMB Control Number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification was estimated to average 20 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    As stated above, in the event DOE proposes an energy conservation 
standard for furnace fans with which manufacturers must demonstrate 
compliance, DOE will seek OMB approval of the associated information 
collection requirement. DOE will seek approval either through a 
proposed amendment to the information collection requirement approved 
under OMB control number 1910-1400 or as a separate proposed 
information collection requirement.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    In this final rule, DOE establishes its test procedure for furnace 
fans. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions 
that are categorically excluded from review under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE's 
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, this rule 
amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or 
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any 
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical 
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any 
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing 
the environmental effect of that rule. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined 
that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State 
regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the 
subject of today's final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption 
from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation 
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal 
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) 
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to 
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification 
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available 
at http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's 
final rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined 
that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a 
mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in 
any year, so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Today's final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

[[Page 520]]

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, 
a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A 
``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an agency 
that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final 
rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive 
Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy 
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of 
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on 
energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has 
it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator 
of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, 
accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The test procedure established by this action incorporates testing 
methods contained in the DOE test procedure for furnaces codified in 
Appendix N or Subpart B of part 430 of the CFR (which incorporates by 
reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103, ``Method of Testing for Annual Fuel 
Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,'') 
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment.'') While today's proposed test procedure is not exclusively 
based on these standards, some components of the DOE test procedure 
would adopt definitions, test setup, measurement techniques, and 
additional calculations from them without any change. DOE has evaluated 
these two versions of this standard and is unable to conclude whether 
it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA 
(i.e. whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for 
public participation, comment, and review.) DOE has consulted with both 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC about the impact on 
competition of using the methods contained in these standards and has 
received no comments objecting to their use.

M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of today's rule before its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

N. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household 
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 24, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and 
430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER 
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.


0
2. Add Sec.  429.58 to read as follows:


Sec.  429.58  Furnace fans.

    (a) Sampling plan for selection of units for testing. (1) The 
requirements of Sec.  429.11 are applicable to furnace fans; and
    (2) For each basic model of furnace fan, a sample of sufficient 
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any 
represented value of fan energy rating (FER), rounded to the nearest 
integer, shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
    (i) The mean of the sample, where:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.005
    
    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:

[[Page 521]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.006

    And x is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is 
the number of samples; and t0.90 is the t statistic for a 90% one-
tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from Appendix 
A).
    (b) [Reserved]

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
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.


0
4. Section 430.2 is amended by
0
a. Adding paragraph (3) to the definition for ``basic model''; and
0
b. Adding a definition for ``furnace fan'' in alphabetical order.
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  430.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Basic model * * *
    (3) with respect to furnace fans: Are marketed and/or designed to 
be installed in the same type of installation.
* * * * *
    Furnace fan means an electrically-powered device used in a consumer 
product for the purpose of circulating air through ductwork.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(4) through (10) as paragraphs (f)(5) 
through (11);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (f)(4);
0
c. Removing, in newly redesignated (f)(5), ``Reaffirmed 2001'' and 
adding in its place ``Reaffirmed 2006''; and removing ``appendix E and 
appendix M to subpart B'' and adding in its place ``appendices E, M, 
and AA to subpart B'';
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (f)(10);
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ASHRAE 37-2009''), Methods of 
Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and 
Heat Pump Equipment, ANSI approved June 25, 2009, IBR approved for 
appendix AA to subpart B.
* * * * *
    (10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, (``ASHRAE 103-2007''), Methods 
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential 
Central Furnaces and Boilers, except for sections 7.2.2.5, 8.6.1.1, 
9.1.2.2, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, 9.7.1, 11.2.12, 
11.3.12, 11.4.12, 11.5.12 and appendices B and C, ANSI approved March 
25, 2008, IBR approved for appendix AA to subpart B.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 430.23 is amended by adding paragraph (cc) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.23  Test procedures for the measurement of energy and water 
consumption.

* * * * *
    (cc) Furnace Fans. The energy consumption of a single unit of a 
furnace fan basic model expressed in watts per 1000 cubic feet per 
minute (cfm) to the nearest integer shall be calculated in accordance 
with Appendix AA of this subpart.

0
7. Appendix AA to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:

Appendix AA to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Furnace Fans

    Note: Any representation made after July 2, 2014 for energy 
consumption of furnace fans must be based upon results generated 
under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of any energy 
conservation standard(s) for furnace fans, use of the applicable 
provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate compliance with the 
energy conservation standard will also be required.
    1. Scope. This appendix covers the test requirements used to 
measure the energy consumption of fans used in weatherized and non-
weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, and 
modular blowers.
    2. Definitions. Definitions include the definitions as specified 
in section 3 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see 
Sec.  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 Sec.  430.3) specifically 
referenced in this test procedure are part of this test procedure. 
In cases where there is a conflict, the language of the test 
procedure in this appendix takes precedence over ASHRAE 103-2007.
    2.4. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1-1986 (RA 2006) means the test 
standard published in 1986, approved by ANSI on February 18, 1987, 
reaffirmed in 2006, and entitled ``Standard Method for Temperature 
Measurement'' (incorporated by reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.5. ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 means the test standard published 
in 2009 by ASHRAE entitled ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (incorporated by 
reference; see Sec.  430.3).
    2.6. Default airflow-control settings are the airflow-control 
settings specified for installed-use by the manufacturer. For the 
purposes of this appendix, manufacturer specifications for 
installed-use are those specifications provided for typical consumer 
installations in the product literature shipped with the product in 
which the furnace fan is installed. In instances where a 
manufacturer specifies multiple airflow-control settings for a given 
function to account for varying installation scenarios, the highest 
airflow-control setting specified for the given function shall be 
used for the procedures specified in this appendix.
    2.7. External static pressure (ESP) means the difference between 
static pressures measured in the outlet duct and return air opening 
(or return air duct when used for testing) of the product in which 
the furnace fan is integrated.
    2.8. Furnace fan means an 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 and cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu per hour.
    2.10. Off mode means the condition in which the product in which 
the furnace fan is integrated either is not connected to the power 
source or is connected to the power source but not energized.
    2.11. Seasonal off switch means a switch on the product in which 
the furnace fan is integrated that, when activated, results in a 
measurable change in energy consumption between the standby and off 
modes.
    2.12. Standby mode means the condition in which the product in 
which the furnace fan is integrated is connected to the power

[[Page 522]]

source, energized, but the furnace fan is not circulating air.
    2.13. Thermal stack damper means a type of stack damper that 
opens only during the direct conversion of thermal energy of the 
stack gases.
    3. Classifications. Classifications are as specified in section 
4 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3).
    4. Requirements. Requirements are as specified in section 5 of 
ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3). In 
addition, Fan Energy Rating (FER) of furnace fans shall be 
determined using test data and estimated national average operating 
hours pursuant to section 10.10 of this appendix.
    5. Instruments. Instruments must be as specified in section 6, 
not including section 6.2, of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3); and as specified in section 5.1 and 5.2 
of this appendix.
    5.1. Temperature. Temperature measuring instruments shall meet 
the provisions specified in section 5.1 of ASHRAE 37-2009 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) and shall be accurate 
to within 0.75 degree Fahrenheit (within 0.4 degrees Celsius).
    5.1.1. Outlet Air Temperature Thermocouple Grid. Outlet air 
temperature shall be measured as described in section 8.2.1.5.5 of 
ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3) and 
illustrated in Figure 2 of ASHRAE 103-2007. Thermocouples shall be 
placed downstream of pressure taps used for external static pressure 
measurement.
    5.2. Humidity. Air humidity shall be measured with a relative 
humidity sensor that is accurate to within 5% relative humidity. Air 
humidity shall be measured as close as possible to the inlet of the 
product in which the furnace fan is installed.
    6. Apparatus. The apparatus used in conjunction with the furnace 
during the testing shall be as specified in section 7 of ASHRAE 103-
2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  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 Sec.  430.3) or the steady-state test described in 
section 9.1 of ASHRAE 103-2007. Do not insulate the internal vent 
pipe before the cool-down and heat-up tests described in sections 
9.5 and 9.6, respectively, of ASHRAE 103-2007. If the vent pipe is 
surrounded by a metal jacket, do not insulate the metal jacket. 
Install a 5-ft test stack of the same cross sectional area or 
perimeter as the vent pipe above the top of the furnace. Tape or 
seal around the junction connecting the vent pipe and the 5-ft test 
stack. Insulate the 5-ft test stack with insulation having a minimum 
R-value of 7 and an outer layer of aluminum foil. (See Figure 3-E of 
ASHRAE 103-2007.)
    6.3. Modular Blowers. A modular blower shall be equipped with 
the electric heat resistance kit that is likely to have the largest 
volume of retail sales with that particular basic model of modular 
blower.
    6.4. Ducts and Plenums. Ducts and plenums shall be built to the 
geometrical specifications in section 7 of ASHRAE 103-2007. An 
apparatus for measuring external static pressure shall be integrated 
in the plenum and test duct as specified in sections 6.4, excluding 
specifications regarding the minimum length of the ducting and 
minimum distance between the external static pressure taps and 
product inlet and outlet, and 6.5 of ASHRAE 37-2009 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3). External static pressure measuring 
instruments shall be placed between the furnace openings and any 
restrictions or elbows in the test plenums or ducts. For all test 
configurations, external static pressure taps shall be placed 18 
inches from the outlet.
    6.4.1. For tests conducted using a return air duct. Additional 
external static pressure taps shall be placed 12 inches from the 
product inlet. Pressure shall be directly measured as a differential 
pressure as depicted in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37-2009 rather than 
determined by separately measuring inlet and outlet static pressure 
and subtracting the results.
    6.4.2. For tests conducted without a return air duct. External 
static pressure shall be directly measured as the differential 
pressure between the outlet duct static pressure and the ambient 
static pressure as depicted in Figure 7a of ASHRAE 37-2009.
    6.5. Air Filters. Air filters shall be removed.
    6.6. Electrical Measurement. Only electrical input power to the 
furnace fan (and electric resistance heat kit for electric furnaces 
and modular blowers) shall be measured for the purposes of this 
appendix. Electrical input power to the furnace fan and electric 
resistance hate kit shall be sub-metered separately. Electrical 
input power to all other electricity-consuming components of the 
product in which the furnace fan is integrated shall not be included 
in the electrical input power measurements used in the FER 
calculation. If the procedures of this appendix are being conducted 
at the same time as another test that requires metering of 
components other than the furnace fan and electric resistance heat 
kit, the electrical input power to the furnace fan and electric 
resistance heat kit shall be sub-metered separately from one another 
and separately from other electrical input power measurements.
    7. Test Conditions. The testing conditions shall be as specified 
in section 8, not including section 8.6.1.1, of ASHRAE 103-2007 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3); and as specified in 
section 7.1 of this appendix.
    7.1. Measurement of Jacket Surface Temperature (optional). The 
jacket of the furnace or boiler shall be subdivided into 6-inch 
squares when practical, and otherwise into 36-square-inch regions 
comprising 4 in. x 9 in. or 3 in. x 12 in. sections, and the surface 
temperature at the center of each square or section shall be 
determined with a surface thermocouple. The 36-square-inch areas 
shall be recorded in groups where the temperature differential of 
the 36-square-inch area is less than 10[emsp14][deg]F for 
temperature up to 100[emsp14][deg]F above room temperature and less 
than 20[emsp14][deg]F for temperature more than 100[emsp14][deg]F 
above room temperature. For forced air central furnaces, the 
circulating air blower compartment is considered as part of the duct 
system and no surface temperature measurement of the blower 
compartment needs to be recorded for the purpose of this test. For 
downflow furnaces, measure all cabinet surface temperatures of the 
heat exchanger and combustion section, including the bottom around 
the outlet duct, and the burner door, using the 36 square-inch 
thermocouple grid. The cabinet surface temperatures around the 
blower section do not need to be measured (see figure 3-E of ASHRAE 
103-2007.)
    8. Test Procedure. Testing and measurements shall be as 
specified in section 9 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3) except for sections 9.1.2.1, 9.3, 
9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, and section 9.7.1; and as 
specified in sections 8.1 through 8.6 of this appendix.
    8.1. Direct Measurement of Off-Cycle Losses Testing Method. 
[Reserved.]
    8.2. Measurement of Electrical Standby and Off Mode Power. 
[Reserved]
    8.3. Steady-State Conditions for Gas and Oil Furnaces. Steady-
state conditions are indicated by an external static pressure within 
the range shown in Table 1 and a temperature variation in three 
successive readings, taken 15 minutes apart, of not more than any of 
the following:
    (a) 3[emsp14][deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces 
equipped with draft diverters;
    (b) 5[emsp14][deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces 
equipped with either draft hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent 
systems; and
    (c) 1[emsp14][deg]F in the flue gas temperature for condensing 
furnaces.
    8.4. Steady-state Conditions for Electric Furnaces and Modular 
Blowers. Steady-state conditions are indicated by an external static 
pressure within the range shown in Table 1 and a temperature 
variation of not more than 5[emsp14][deg]F in the outlet air 
temperature in four successive temperature readings taken 15 minutes 
apart.
    8.5. Steady-State Conditions for Cold Flow Tests. For tests 
during which the burner or electric heating elements are turned off 
(i.e., cold flow tests), steady-state conditions are indicated by an 
external static pressure within the range shown in Table 1 and a

[[Page 523]]

variation in the difference between outlet temperature and ambient 
temperature of not more than 3[emsp14][deg]F in three successive 
temperature readings taken 15 minutes apart.
    8.6. Fan Energy Rating (FER) Test.
    8.6.1. Initial FER test conditions and maximum airflow-control 
setting measurements. Measure the relative humidity (W) and dry bulb 
temperature (Tdb) of the test room.
    8.6.1.1. Furnace fans for which the maximum airflow-control 
setting is not a default heating airflow-control setting. The main 
burner or electric heating elements shall be turned off. Adjust the 
external static pressure to within the range shown in Table 1 by 
symmetrically restricting the outlet of the test duct. Maintain 
these settings until steady-state conditions are attained as 
specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix. Measure 
furnace fan electrical input power (EMax), external 
static pressure (ESPMax), and outlet air temperature 
(TMax,Out).
    8.6.1.2. Furnace fans for which the maximum airflow-control 
setting is a default heating airflow-control setting. Adjust the 
main burner or electric heating element controls to the default heat 
setting designated for the maximum airflow-control setting. Burner 
adjustments shall be made as specified by section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 
103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  430.3). Adjust the 
furnace fan controls to the maximum airflow-control setting. Adjust 
the external static to within the range shown in Table 1 by 
symmetrically restricting the outlet of the test duct. Maintain 
these settings until steady-state conditions are attained as 
specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix and the 
temperature rise ([Delta]TMax) is at least 
18[emsp14][deg]F. Measure furnace fan electrical input power 
(EMax), fuel or electric resistance heat kit input energy 
(QIN, Max), external static pressure (ESPMax), 
steady-state efficiency for this setting (EffySS, Max) as 
specified in sections 11.2 and 11.3 of ASHRAE 103-2007, outlet air 
temperature (TMax,Out), and temperature rise 
([Delta]TMax)

    Table 1--Required Minimum External Static Pressure in the Maximum
              Airflow-Control Setting by Installation Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           ESP (in. wc.)
                    Installation type                            *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units with an internal, factory-installed evaporator           0.50-0.55
 coil...................................................
Units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil, but       0.65-0.70
 without one installed..................................
Mobile home.............................................       0.30-0.35
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once the specified ESP has been achieved, the same outlet duct 
restrictions shall be used for the remainder of the furnace fan 
test.
    8.6.2. Constant circulation airflow-control setting 
measurements. The main burner or electric heating elements shall be 
turned off. The furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to the 
default constant circulation 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 
furnace fan electrical input power (ECirc) and external 
static pressure (ESPCirc).
    8.6.3. Heating airflow-control setting measurements. For single-
stage gas and oil furnaces, the burner shall be fired at the maximum 
heat input rate. For single-stage electric furnaces, the electric 
heating elements shall be energized at the maximum heat input rate. 
For multi-stage and modulating furnaces the reduced heat input rate 
settings shall be used. Burner adjustments shall be made as 
specified by section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3). After the burner is activated and 
adjusted or the electric heating elements are energized, the furnace 
fan controls shall be adjusted to operate the fan in the default 
heat airflow-control setting. In instances where a manufacturer 
specifies multiple airflow-control settings for a given function to 
account for varying installation scenarios, the highest airflow-
control setting specified for the given function shall be used. High 
heat and reduced heat shall be considered different functions for 
multi-stage heating units. Maintain these settings until steady-
state conditions are attained as specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 
8.5 of this appendix and the temperature rise 
([Delta]THeat) is at least 18[emsp14][deg]F. Measure 
furnace fan electrical input power (EHeat), external 
static pressure (ESPHeat), steady-state efficiency for 
this setting (EffySS) as specified in sections 11.2 and 
11.3 of ASHRAE 103-2007, outlet air temperature 
(THeat, Out) and temperature rise 
([Delta]THeat).
    9. Nomenclature. Nomenclature shall include the nomenclature 
specified in section 10 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  430.3) and the following additional variables:

CH = annual furnace fan cooling hours
CCH = annual furnace fan constant-circulation hours
ECirc = furnace fan electrical consumption at the default 
constant-circulation airflow-control setting (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 (nameplate reduced heat input capacity 
divided by nameplate maximum input heat capacity)
kref = physical descriptor characterizing the reference 
system
Tdb = dry bulb temperature of the test room, in [deg]F
Ti, In = inlet air temperature at time of the electrical 
power measurement, in [deg]F, in airflow-control setting i, where i 
can be ``Circ'' to represent constant-circulation (or minimum 
airflow) mode, ``Heat'' to represent heating mode, or ``Max'' to 
represent maximum airflow (typically designated for cooling) mode
Ti, Out = average outlet air temperature as measured by 
the outlet thermocouple grid at time of the electrical power 
measurement, in [deg]F, in airflow-control setting i, where i can be 
``Circ'' to represent constant-circulation (or minimum airflow) 
mode, ``Heat'' to represent heating mode, or ``Max'' to represent 
maximum airflow (typically designated for cooling) mode
[Delta]Ti = Ti, Out minus Ti, In, 
which is the air throughput temperature rise in setting i, in [deg]F
Qi = airflow in airflow-control setting i, in cubic feet 
per minute (CFM)
QIN,i = for electric furnaces and modular blowers, the 
measured electrical input power to the electric resistance heat kit 
at specified operating conditions i in kW. For gas and oil furnaces, 
measured fuel energy input rate, in Btu/h, at specified operating 
conditions i based on the fuel's high heating value determined as 
required in section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3 of ASHRAE 103-2007, where i 
can be ``Max'' for the maximum heat setting or ``R'' for the reduced 
heat setting.
W = humidity ratio in pounds water vapor per pounds dry air
vair = specific volume of dry air at specified operating 
conditions per the equations in the psychrometric chapter in 2001 
ASHRAE Handbook--Fundamentals in lb/ft\3\

    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 Sec.  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)
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.007
    

[[Page 524]]


Where:

Qmax = Qheat for products for which the maximum airflow-control 
setting is a default heat setting, or
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.008

    for products for which the maximum airflow control setting is 
only designated for cooling; and
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.009

    The estimated national average operating hours presented in 
Table IV.2 shall be used to calculate FER.

                Table IV.2--Estimated National Average Operating Hour Values for Calculating FER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Single-stage     Multi-stage or modulating
            Operating mode                       Variable              (hours)                (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating...............................  HH.......................             830  830/HCR.
Cooling...............................  CH.......................             640  640.
Constant Circulation..................  CCH......................             400  400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03JA14.010


[FR Doc. 2013-31257 Filed 1-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P