Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedures for Residential Furnace Fans, 19606-19628 [2013-07327]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19606
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 78, No. 63
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010]
RIN 1904–AC21
Energy Conservation Program for
Consumer Products: Test Procedures
for Residential Furnace Fans
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) proposes to establish test
procedures for electrically-powered
devices used in residential heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) products to circulate air
through ductwork, hereafter referred to
as ‘‘furnace fans.’’ DOE proposes a test
procedure that would be applicable to
furnace fans that are used in
weatherized and non-weatherized gas,
oil and electric furnaces and modular
blowers, even though DOE interprets its
authority as encompassing more than
just circulation fans used in furnaces.
This notice proposes to establish a test
method for measuring the electrical
consumption of the furnace fans used in
these products. Concurrently, DOE is
undertaking an energy conservation
standards rulemaking to address the
electrical energy used by these products
for circulating air. Once these energy
conservation standards are promulgated,
the adopted test procedures would be
used to determine compliance with the
standards. DOE is also requesting
written comments on issues presented
in this test procedure rulemaking. DOE
does not plan to hold a public meeting
to discuss the modified proposals of this
supplemental notice.
DATES: Comments: DOE will accept
comments, data, and information
regarding this supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no later
than May 2, 2013. For details, see
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this
SNOPR.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the SNOPR on Test
Procedures for Residential Furnace
Fans, and provide docket number
EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010 and/or
regulatory information number (RIN)
number 1904–AC21. Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: FurnFans-2010-TP0010@ee.doe.gov. Include docket
number EERE–2010–BT–TP–0010 and
RIN 1904–AC21 in the subject line of
the message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Program, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for detailed instructions
on submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process.
Docket: The docket is available for
review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices,
public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in
the index may be publicly available,
such as information that is exempt from
public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
product.aspx/productid/42. This Web
page contains a link to the docket for
this notice on the www.regulations.gov
site. The www.regulations.gov Web page
contains simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
comments, in the docket. See section V,
‘‘Public Participation,’’ for information
on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by
email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
residential furnace fans rulemaking
electronic mailbox, Email:
Residential_furnace_fans@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–71, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–6307. Email:
Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or
review public comments, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program,
EE–2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
III. SNOPR Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. AHRI Test Method
1. Calculating Maximum Airflow
2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure
Measurements
3. Temperature Rise Measurements
C. Definitions
D. Sampling Plans
E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy
Consumption
F. Reference System Product Types
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
1. Airflow Equation
2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated
Heating Airflow-Control Setting To
Calculate Maximum Airflow
3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting To
Measure Temperature Rise
4. Elevation Impacts
5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications
6. Optional Return Air Duct
7. ASHRAE 37–2005 External Static
Pressure Measurement Provisions
8. Temperature Measurement Accuracy
Requirement
9. Minimum Temperature Rise
10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria
11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature
Gradients
12. Sampling Plan Criteria
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy
and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or
the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C.
6291–6309, as codified) sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency and
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Consumer Products Other
Than Automobiles, a program covering
most major household appliances.2
These covered appliances include
products that use electricity for the
purposes of circulating air through
ductwork, hereinafter referred to as
‘‘furnace fans,’’ the subject of today’s
notice.3 (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D))
Under the Act, this energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2)
labeling; (3) Federal energy conservation
standards; and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. The testing
requirements consist of test procedures
that manufacturers of covered products
must use as the basis for certifying to
DOE that their products comply with
the applicable energy conservation
standards adopted pursuant to EPCA
and for making representations about
the efficiency of those products. (42
U.S.C. 6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Any
representation made after September 30,
2013 for energy consumption of
residential furnace fans must be based
upon results generated under this test
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A.
2 All references to EPCA in this rulemaking refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law
110–140.
3 DOE interprets its authority as encompassing
more than just circulation fans used in residential
furnaces. At the present time, however, DOE is only
proposing a test procedure that would cover those
fans that are used in weatherized and nonweatherized gas, oil, and electric furnaces, and
modular blowers.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
procedure. Upon the compliance date(s)
of any energy conservation standard(s)
for residential furnace fans, use of the
applicable provisions of this test
procedure to demonstrate compliance
with the energy conservation standard
will also be required. Similarly, DOE
must use these test procedures in any
enforcement action to determine
whether covered products comply with
these energy conservation standards. (42
U.S.C. 6295(s))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE must
follow when prescribing or amending
test procedures for covered products.
Under EPCA, ‘‘[a]ny test procedures
prescribed or amended under this
section shall be reasonably designed to
produce test results which measure
energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of a
covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use * * *
and shall not be unduly burdensome to
conduct.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In
addition, if DOE determines that a test
procedure amendment is warranted, it
must publish proposed test procedures
and offer the public an opportunity to
present oral and written comments on
them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In any
rulemaking to amend a test procedure,
DOE must determine to what extent, if
any, the proposed test procedure would
alter the measured energy efficiency of
a covered product as determined under
the existing test procedure. (42 U.S.C.
6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would alter the
measured efficiency of a covered
product, DOE must amend the
applicable energy conservation standard
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Energy Conservation Standards and
Test Procedures for Furnace Fans
Pursuant to EPCA under 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D), DOE is currently
conducting a rulemaking to consider
new energy conservation standards for
furnace fans. EPCA directs DOE to
establish test procedures in conjunction
with new energy conservation
standards, including furnace fans. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) DOE does not
currently have a test procedure for
furnace fans. Hence, to fulfill the
statutory requirements, DOE initiated a
test procedure rulemaking for furnace
fans simultaneously to the energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
furnace fans. DOE intends for the test
procedure to include an energy
consumption metric and the methods
necessary to measure the energy
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19607
performance of the covered products.
The proposed energy consumption
metric does not account for the
electrical energy consumption in
standby mode and off mode because
consumption in those modes is already
accounted for in the DOE rulemakings
for furnaces and central air conditioners
(CAC) and heat pumps. 77 FR 76831,
December 31, 2012; 76 FR 65616 (Oct.
24, 2011). Manufacturers would be
required to use the proposed energy
consumption metric, sampling plans,
and testing methods developed during
this rulemaking to verify compliance
with the new energy conservation
standards when they take effect and for
making representations about the energy
consumption of furnace fans.
On June 3, 2010, DOE published a
Notice of Public Meeting and
Availability of the Framework
Document (the June 2010 Framework
Document) to initiate the energy
conservation standard rulemaking for
furnace fans. 75 FR 31323. In the June
2010 Framework Document, DOE
requested feedback from interested
parties on many issues related to test
methods for evaluating the electrical
energy consumption of furnace fans.
DOE held the framework public meeting
on June 18, 2010. DOE originally
scheduled the framework comment
period to close on July 6, 2010.
However, due to the large number and
broad scope of questions and issues
raised regarding the June 2010
Framework Document in writing and
during the public meeting, DOE
published a notice in the Federal
Register reopening the comment period
from July 15, 2010, until July 27, 2010,
to allow additional time for interested
parties to submit comments. 75 FR
41102 (July 15, 2010).
On May 15, 2012, DOE published a
notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register to initiate the test
procedure rulemaking for furnace fans.
77 FR 28674. In the NOPR, DOE
proposed a rating metric, fan efficiency
rating (FER) and proposed methods to
measure the performance of covered
products based on FER. DOE held a
public meeting on the test procedure
NOPR on June 15, 2012. The test
procedure NOPR comment period
closed on September 10, 2012.
In response to the NOPR, many
interested parties commented that the
proposed test procedure was unduly
burdensome. The Air-Conditioning,
Heating and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI), with support from Goodman
Global, Inc. (‘‘Goodman’’), Ingersoll
Rand, Lennox International, Inc.
(‘‘Lennox’’), and Morrison Products, Inc.
(‘‘Morrison’’), proposed an alternative
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19608
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
test method that it argues would result
in accurate and repeatable FER values
that are comparable to the FER values
resulting from the test procedure
proposed in the NOPR, but are obtained
at a significantly reduced test burden.
(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17
at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1;
Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) A detailed
discussion of AHRI’s proposed
alternative method and interested
parties’ comments regarding the burden
of the test procedure proposed in the
NOPR is provided in section III.B of this
notice.
DOE agrees that the key concept
embodied in the alternative method
suggested by AHRI and manufacturers
(using the AFUE test set up and
temperature rise to determine airflow)
may provide accurate and repeatable
FER values at a significantly reduced
burden to manufacturers. In this
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNOPR), DOE proposes to
adopt a modified version of the test
method presented by AHRI as the
furnace fan test procedure. DOE also
explains the changes reflected in the test
procedure proposed herein compared to
the test procedure proposed in the
NOPR. This notice also provides
interested parties with an opportunity to
comment on the revised proposed test
method.
In this SNOPR, DOE addresses only
the changes to the test procedure it
proposed in the NOPR and those
comments received on the NOPR that
are relevant to the proposed changes.
All other comments received on the test
procedure NOPR will be addressed in
the test procedure final rule.
II. Summary of the Supplemental
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to
establish these test procedures in order
to allow for the development of energy
conservation standards to address the
electrical consumption of the products
covered under this rulemaking. (42
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) The proposed test
procedure would be applicable to
electrically-powered devices used in
central HVAC systems for the purposes
of circulating air through ductwork
(referred to collectively as furnace fans
in this rulemaking). Furnace fans
covered in the scope of the proposed
test procedure include circulation fans
used in weatherized and nonweatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces,
electric furnaces, and modular blowers.
DOE’s proposed definition of modular
blowers is provided in section III.C. The
proposed test procedure would not be
applicable to any non-ducted products,
such as whole-house ventilation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:56 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
systems without ductwork, central airconditioning (CAC) condensing unit
fans, room fans, and furnace draft
inducer fans.
DOE proposes to adopt a modified
version of the alternative test method
recommended by AHRI and other
furnace fan manufacturers to rate the
electrical consumption of furnace fans.
The AHRI-proposed method provides a
framework for accurate and repeatable
determinations of FER that is
comparable to the test method
previously proposed by DOE, but at a
significantly reduced test burden. In
general, the AHRI proposal reduces the
test burden because it: (1) Does not
require airflow to be measured directly;
(2) avoids the need to make multiple
determinations in each airflow-control
setting because outlet restrictions to
achieve the specified reference system
external static pressure (ESP) would be
set in the maximum airflow-control
setting and maintained for
measurements in subsequent airflowcontrol settings; and (3) can be
conducted using the test set up
currently required to rate furnace AFUE
for compliance with furnace standards.
DOE proposes to align the proposed
furnace fan test procedure with the DOE
test procedure for furnaces by
incorporating by reference specific
provisions from an industry standard
incorporated by reference in its test
procedure for furnaces. DOE’s test
procedure for furnaces is codified in
appendix N of subpart B of part 430 of
the code of federal regulations (CFR).
The DOE furnace test procedure
incorporates by reference American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/
American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) 103–1993, Method
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103).
DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference the definitions, test setup and
equipment, and procedures for
measuring steady state combustion
efficiency provisions of the 2007 version
of ASHRAE 103. In addition to these
provisions, DOE proposes additional
provisions for apparatuses and
procedures for measuring throughput
temperature, external static pressure,
and furnace fan electrical input power.
DOE also proposes calculations to
derive FER based on the results of
testing for each basic model.
DOE proposes to use the same
definition for the fan efficiency rating
(FER) metric as proposed in the NOPR,
but to modify the title and calculation.
In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define
FER as the estimated annual electrical
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
energy consumption of the furnace fan
normalized by: (a) The estimated total
number of annual fan operating hours
(1,870); and (b) the airflow in the
maximum airflow-control setting. DOE
is aware that referring to the FER rating
metric as the ‘‘fan efficiency rating,’’ as
was done in the NOPR, is a misnomer
because it is not a function of the output
energy of the furnace fan, which is
typical of an efficiency metric. FER is a
function of fan energy consumption and
as a result, DOE believes it is more
appropriately categorized as an energy
consumption metric. Thus DOE
proposes to refer to FER as the ‘‘fan
energy rating.’’ The estimated annual
electrical energy consumption, as
proposed, is a weighted average of the
furnace fan electrical input power (in
Watts) measured separately for multiple
airflow-control settings at different
external static pressures (ESPs). These
ESPs are determined by a reference
system that represents national average
ductwork system characteristics. Table
II.1 includes the proposed reference
system ESP values by installation type.
The reference system ESP values
proposed in the NOPR included a value
for ‘‘heating-only’’ installation types.
Interested parties recommended that
DOE eliminate this installation type
because they are unaware of products
that could be categorized as such. DOE
agrees with interested parties and
proposes to eliminate the heating-only
designation for this SNOPR. Section
III.F provides a detailed discussion of
this issue.
TABLE II.1—PROPOSED REFERENCE
SYSTEM ESP VALUES BY FURNACE
FAN INSTALLATION TYPE
Installation type
Units with an internal evaporator coil ............................
Units designed to be paired
with an evaporator coil ......
Units installed in a Manufactured homes 4 ....................
Weighted
average ESP
(in. w.c.)
0.50
0.65
0.30
The proposed rated airflow-control
settings correspond to operation in
cooling mode (which DOE finds is
predominantly associated with the
maximum airflow-control setting),
heating mode, and constant-circulation
mode. Table II.2 illustrates the airflow4 Manufactured home external static pressure is
much smaller because there is no return air
ductwork in manufactured homes. Also, the United
States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) requirements for manufactured
homes stipulate that the ductwork for cooling
should be set at 0.3 in. w.c.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19609
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
control settings that would be rated for
various product types. The NOPR
included proposed rated airflow control
settings for heating-only installations.
As discussed above, DOE proposes to
eliminate the heating-only designation
for the reasons outlined in section III.F.
TABLE II.2—PROPOSED RATED AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTINGS BY PRODUCT TYPE
Product type
Rated airflow-control setting 1
Rated airflow-control setting 2
Single-stage Heating .....................
Multi-stage or Modulating Heating
Default constant-circulation ...........
Default constant-circulation ...........
Default heat ..................................
Default low heat ............................
As shown in Table II.2., for products
with single-stage heating, the three
proposed rating airflow-control settings
are the default constant-circulation
setting, the default heating setting, and
the absolute maximum setting. For
products with multi-stage heating or
modulating heating, the proposed rating
airflow-control settings are the default
constant-circulation setting, the default
low heating setting, and the absolute
maximum setting. The absolute lowest
default airflow-control setting is used to
represent constant circulation if a
default constant-circulation setting is
not specified. DOE’s proposes to define
‘‘default airflow-control settings’’ as the
airflow-control settings specified for
installed use by the manufacturer in the
product literature shipped with the
product in which the furnace fan is
integrated. Manufacturers typically
provide detailed instructions for setting
the default heating airflow controlsetting to ensure that the product in
which the furnace fan is integrated
operates safely. Manufacturer
installation guides also provide detailed
Rated airflow-control setting 3
Absolute maximum.
Absolute maximum.
instructions regarding compatible
thermostats and how to wire them to
achieve the specified default settings.
DOE proposes to weight the Watt
measurements using designated annual
operating hours for each function (i.e.,
cooling, heating, and constant
circulation) that are intended to
represent national average operation.
Table II.3 shows the proposed estimated
national average operating hours for
each function to be used to calculate
FER, which are the same as those
proposed in the NOPR.
TABLE II.3—ESTIMATED NATIONAL AVERAGE OPERATING HOUR VALUES FOR CALCULATING FER
Single-stage
(hours)
Operating mode
Variable
Heating .........................................................................
Cooling ..........................................................................
Constant Circulation .....................................................
HH .................................................................................
CH .................................................................................
CCH ..............................................................................
830
640
400
Multi-stage or
modulating
(hours)
830/HCR
640
400
NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate
HCR to adjust the heating operating
hours in both the numerator (i.e.
estimated annual energy consumption)
and denominator (i.e. normalization
factor of total operating hours times
airflow in the maximum airflow-control
setting). 77 FR at 28701 (May 15, 2012).
In this SNOPR, DOE proposes to
incorporate HCR in the numerator, and
eliminate it from the denominator in the
revised proposed FER equation. DOE
finds that this modification results in
FER values that more accurately reflect
the relative efficiency of multi-stage and
modulating units compared to singlestage units. The revised proposed FER
equation is:
III. SNOPR Discussion
circulation fans used in gas furnaces, oil
furnaces, electric furnaces, CAC air
handlers, and modular blowers in the
scope of coverage. DOE also sought
comment on excluding draft inducer
fans, exhaust fans, heat recovery
ventilators (HRV), and energy recovery
ventilators (ERV) from the scope of
coverage. DOE also requested comment
on whether other products, such as
small-duct, high-velocity (SDHV) and
through-the-wall systems should be
included in the scope of coverage of this
rulemaking.
In the test procedure NOPR, DOE
proposed a scope of applicability for the
test procedure that was sufficiently
broad to cover the products under
consideration for the scope of coverage
for the energy conservation standards.
The NOPR test procedure’s proposed
scope of applicability included singlephase, electrically-powered devices that
circulate air through ductwork in HVAC
systems with heating input capacities
less than 225,000 Btu per hour, cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu per hour,
and airflow capacities less than 3,000
cfm. These heating and cooling capacity
limits are identical to those in the DOE
definitions for residential ‘‘furnace’’ and
‘‘central air conditioner’’ (10 CFR
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Scope of Coverage
EPCA grants DOE authority to
‘‘consider and prescribe energy
conservation standards or energy use
standards for electricity used for
purposes of circulating air through
ductwork.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D)) In
the June 2010 Framework Document,
DOE tentatively interpreted this EPCA
language to allow DOE to cover any
electrically-powered device used in a
central HVAC system for the purpose of
circulating air through ductwork. DOE
sought comment on including the air
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.018</GPH>
The specified operating hours for the
heating mode for multi-stage heating or
modulating heating products are
divided by the heat capacity ratio (HCR)
to account for variation in time spent in
this mode associated with turndown of
heating output. The HCR is the ratio of
the reduced heat output capacity to
maximum heat output capacity. In the
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19610
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
430.2), and the airflow typically
required to provide these levels of
heating and cooling. DOE proposed to
exclude from the scope of applicability
of the test procedure any non-ducted
products such as whole-house
ventilation systems without ductwork,
CAC condensing unit fans, room fans,
and furnace draft inducer fans because
these products do not circulate air
through ductwork.
In their comments on the test
procedure NOPR, many interested
parties commented that the scope of
coverage should be limited to
circulation fans used in residential
furnaces. AHRI stated its view that DOE
had misinterpreted the relevant
provision of EPCA. According to AHRI,
the heading of 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)
entitled, ‘‘standards for furnaces and
boilers’’ and subsections 1 through 4
under that section apply only to
residential furnaces and boilers, as
defined by EPCA. 10 CFR 430.2 AHRI
suggested that this clear, consistent
format strongly indicates that the scope
of this requirement includes only the
motor and blower combinations
provided in residential warm air
furnaces. AHRI added that there is
nothing within section 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)
that suggests that the provisions of that
section apply to any other products that
may be used to heat a residence. AHRI
contended that if the intent of this
change had been to include circulation
fans used in residential air conditioners
and heat pumps, then Congress would
have added a corresponding paragraph
to 42 U S C. 6295(d)—the section
covering central air conditioners and
heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 16 at pp. 1–2.)
First Company (‘‘First Co.’’), Morrison,
and Lennox echoed AHRI’s arguments.
(First Co., No. 9 at p. 1; Morrison, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 26;
Lennox, No. 12 at p. 2.)
First Co. added that, although
subsection (f)(4)(D) refers in more
general terms to ‘‘standards for
electricity used for purposes of
circulating air through ductwork,’’ it is
a well-established rule of statutory
construction that, ‘‘[w]here general
words follow specific words in a
statutory enumeration, the general
words are construed to embrace only
objects similar in nature to those objects
enumerated by the preceding specific
words.’’ Circuit City Stores, Inc. v.
Adams, 532 U.S. 105, 114–15, 121 S.Ct.
1302, 1308–09 (2001) (applying the
statutory canon of ejusdem generis); Air
Conditioning and Refrigeration Inst. v.
Energy Res. Conservation and Dev.
Comm’n, 410 F.3d 492,501 (9th Cir.
2005) (applying same statutory canon to
interpretation of EPCA). According to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
First Co., the general language of
subsection (f)(4)(D) is preceded in
subsections (A), (B), and (C) by specific
and repeated references to standards for
furnaces. First Co. argues that applying
the rules of statutory construction, the
provisions of subsection (f)(4)(D) must
be interpreted to apply to furnaces, and
not to a broader category of products.
(First Co., No. 10 at p. 1) DOE disagrees
with this reading of the cases cited
above, as the Supreme Court was in fact
considering a ‘‘residual phrase’’ within
the same sentence, finding it to be
controlled by the specificity of the
words that preceded it. With regard to
the case of separate statutory provisions,
the Supreme Court’s opinion is silent.
DOE provides a general response to the
issue of authority under 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D) later in this section.
AHRI, First Co., Ingersoll Rand,
Morrison, Mortex Products, Inc.,
Goodman, and Lennox commented that
CAC and heat pump products like splitsystem packaged central air
conditioners and heat pump air
handlers should be excluded because
the electrical consumption of their
circulation fans is already addressed in
the seasonal energy efficiency ratio
(SEER) and heating seasonal
performance factor (HSPF) descriptors.
(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
23 at p. 74; First Co., No. 10 at p. 2;
Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 98; Morrison,
No. 21 at p. 2; Mortex, No. 18 at p. 1;
Goodman, No. 17 at p. 1; Lennox, No.
12 at p. 2). First Co. points out that in
the NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt
additional test procedure provisions for
standby and off mode electrical energy
consumption of furnace fans used in
furnaces and CAC and heat pumps
given that consumption in these modes
either has been or is in the process of
being fully addressed in other
rulemakings. Applying the same
principle, First Co. states that there is no
need for DOE to adopt additional test
procedures for furnace fans in central
air conditioners in this rulemaking
because their energy usage is addressed
by the SEER descriptor under the
standard.
First Co. also commented that EPCA
allows for the development of more than
one standard for products that serve
more than one major function, but limits
DOE’s authority to setting one standard
for each major function. 42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(5) According to First Co., to the
extent that DOE has the authority to
regulate the energy efficiency of
‘‘furnace fans,’’ it does not have
authority to require manufacturers of
central air conditioners to meet a
separate standard for a component of
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the system already tested and rated
under the SEER standard. (First Co., No.
10 at p.2.) Ingersoll Rand echoed First
Co.’s sentiments, stating that further
testing of air handlers would be
redundant and add regulatory burden
with no benefit because all air handlers
are currently tested as part of a CAC or
HP system with the fan power included
in the SEER, EER, and HSPF
descriptors. Ingersoll Rand added that
consumer confusion is a likely
unintended consequence. (Ingersoll
Rand, No. 14 at p. 2.) Goodman
submitted that cooling hours and energy
consumption should be removed from
the metric for all covered products to
eliminate duplicate regulations.
(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.)
AHRI, Ingersoll Rand, and Morrison
commented that modular blowers and
hydronic air handlers should not be
covered in this test procedure because
they are beyond the authority provided
by EPCA and are not currently regulated
product classes. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2;
Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 2; Morrison,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
88.)
Several interested parties commented
that the test procedure should address
operation of furnace fans as installed in
the products in which they are sold
rather than separately. DOE
acknowledges that its NOPR may not
have been clear in indicating that the
test procedure proposal would apply to
operation of fans while installed in
these products. Consequently, some
interested parties recommend that DOE
consider the air handler (i.e. the entire
HVAC product) and not just the furnace
fan by testing furnace fans in-situ. The
American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE) commented
that limiting the scope of the rule to a
narrow box around the sheet metal, fan
motor, impeller and shroud is
inappropriate because a large fraction of
the electricity consumption of these
devices has to do with the aerodynamics
of the air handler cabinet, as shown in
previous DOE work conducted by Ian
Walker of Lawrence Berkley National
Lab (LBNL). (ACEEE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 16.) Adjuvant
Consulting (‘‘Adjuvant’’), the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council
(NPCC), and the Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) agree with
ACEEE that air handlers should be the
covered product in this rulemaking.
(Adjuvant, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at pp. 29, 30; NPCC/NEEA, No.
22 at p. 3.) As mentioned above, the test
procedure proposed in the NOPR and
the test procedure proposed herein
would apply to the energy use for air
circulation of the furnace fan as factory-
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
installed in the HVAC product, rather
than stand-alone performance.
During the comment period of the test
procedure NOPR, DOE published a
Notice of Public Meeting and
Availability of Preliminary Analysis
Support Document for the furnace fans
energy conservation standard
rulemaking on July 10, 2012. 77 FR
40530. For the preliminary analysis,
DOE decided that, although the title of
the statutory section refers to ‘‘furnaces
and boilers,’’ the provision governing
the products at issue in this rulemaking
was written using notably broader
language than the other provisions
within the same section, referring to
‘‘electricity used for purposes of
circulating air through ductwork.’’ 5 (42
U.S.C. 6295(f)) Consequently, DOE
maintained its interpretation that its
authority is not limited to circulation
fans used in furnaces. DOE explained
that it proposed to address in the
current energy conservation standard
rulemaking those products for which
DOE has sufficient data and information
to develop credible analyses, and that it
may consider covering air circulation
fans used in other HVAC products in a
future rulemaking as data become
available. DOE’s preliminary analysis
addressed furnace fans used in
weatherized and non-weatherized gas
furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces,
modular blowers, and hydronic air
handlers. Many comments on DOE’s
preliminary analysis that address scope
of coverage are discussed in this section
because they provide additional
commentary regarding the scope of
applicability of the test procedure. The
comments referenced below are
available in docket number EERE–2010–
BT–STD–0010 per the instructions
provided in the ADDRESSES section of
this SNOPR.
Efficiency advocates expressed
concern at the exclusion of furnace fans
used in split-system CAC and heat
pump products and requested that they
be added to the scope. (Appliance
Standards Awareness Project (ASAP),
Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 17;
Adjuvant, Preliminary Analysis, No. 43
at p. 39.) Specifically, efficiency
advocates commented that although the
fan energy use is incorporated as part of
the efficiency metrics—SEER and
HSPF—prescribed by DOE for these
products (10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix M), the external static
pressures (ESPs) used to determine the
5 Please refer to Chapter 2 of the furnace fans
preliminary analysis technical support document
(TSD). The furnace fans preliminary analysis TSD
is available on the DOE Web site: https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/42.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
SEER and HSPF do not reflect asinstalled conditions, in which ESP is
generally significantly higher. (ASAP,
Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 38;
Earthjustice, Preliminary Analysis, No.
49 at p. 1.) In a joint comment from
ACEEE, ASAP, the National Consumer
Law Center (NCLC), NEEA, and the
Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), hereinafter referred to as
ACEEE, et al., in addition to a comment
from the California investor-owned
utilities (CA IOU), efficiency advocates
stated that the reference ESP of 0.1 to
0.2 in. w.c. was too low when compared
to the average field ESP of 0.73 in. w.c.
as identified in the TSD. (ACEEE, et al.,
Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 1; CA
IOU, Preliminary Analysis, No. 56 at p.
2.) ACEEE, et al. also noted that SEER
and HSPF do not account for
continuous circulation operation, which
is expected to increase as stricter
building codes call for tighter building
envelopes. (ACEEE, et al., Preliminary
Analysis, No. 55 at p. 2; CA IOU,
Preliminary Analysis, No. 56 at p. 3.) By
excluding these products from the
analysis, ACEEE, et al. believes that
DOE is ignoring a significant fraction of
the furnace fan market. (ACEEE, et al.,
Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 1.)
Manufacturers’ comments in response
to the preliminary analysis regarding the
scope of coverage were similar to their
comments on the test procedure NOPR.
In contrast to efficiency advocates and
utilities, many manufacturers believe
that the scope of coverage presented in
the preliminary analysis exceeds the
authority granted to DOE by EPCA and
should not include any non-furnace
products such as central air
conditioners, heat pumps, or
condensing unit-blower-coil
combinations. (First Co., Preliminary
Analysis, No. 53 at p. 1.)
DOE notes that, although the title of
this statutory section refers to ‘‘furnaces
and boilers,’’ the applicable provision at
42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D) was written
using broader language than the other
provisions within 42 U.S.C. 6295(f).
Specifically, that statutory provision
directs DOE to ‘‘consider and prescribe
energy conservation standards or energy
use standards for electricity used for
purposes of circulating air through
ductwork.’’ Such language could be
interpreted as encompassing
electrically-powered devices used in
any residential HVAC product to
circulate air through ductwork, not just
furnaces, and DOE has received
numerous comments on both sides of
this issue. At the present time, however,
DOE is only proposing test procedures
for those circulation fans that are used
in residential furnaces and modular
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19611
blowers. As a result, DOE is not
addressing public comments that
pertain to fans in other types of HVAC
products. The following list describes
the furnace fans which DOE proposes to
address as well as those not addressed
in this rulemaking.
• Products addressed in this
rulemaking: furnace fans used in
weatherized and non-weatherized gas
furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces,
and modular blowers.
• Products not addressed in this
rulemaking: furnace fans used in other
products, such as split-system CAC and
heat pump air handlers, through-thewall air handlers, SDHV air handlers,
ERVs, HRVs, draft inducer fans, exhaust
fans, or hydronic air handlers.
DOE is using the term ‘‘modular
blower’’ to refer to HVAC products
powered by single-phase electricity that
comprise an encased circulation blower
that is intended to be the principal air
circulation source for the living space of
a residence. A modular blower is not
contained within the same cabinet as a
residential furnace, CAC, or heat pump.
Instead, modular blowers are designed
to be paired with separate residential
HVAC products that provide heating
and cooling, typically a separate CAC/
HP coil-only unit. DOE finds that
modular blowers and electric furnaces
are very similar in design. In many
cases, the only difference between a
modular blower and electric furnace is
the presence of an electric resistance
heating kit. DOE is aware that some
modular blower manufacturers offer
electric resistance heating kits to be
installed in their modular blower
models so that the modular blowers can
be converted to stand-alone electric
furnaces. In addition, FER values for
modular blowers can be easily
calculated using the proposed test
procedure. DOE proposes to address the
furnace fans used in modular blowers in
this rulemaking for these reasons. The
proposed definition for ‘‘modular
blower’’ is provided in section III.C.
This proposed furnace fan test
procedure would adopt a significant
number of provisions from the DOE
furnace test procedure and would not
result in significant capital expenditures
for manufacturers because they would
not have to acquire or use any test
equipment beyond the equipment that
they already use to conduct the test
method specified in the DOE furnace
test procedure (i.e. the AFUE test setup).
DOE also finds that the time to conduct
a single furnace fan test according to its
proposed furnace fan test procedure
would be less than 3 hours and cost less
than one percent of the manufacturer
selling price of the product in which the
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19612
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
furnace fan is integrated. Section IV.B of
this notice includes a more detailed
discussion of manufacturer test burden.
Consequently, DOE does not find that
testing furnace fans according to this
proposed test procedure would be
unduly burdensome.
After considering available
information and public comments
regarding the test procedure being
applicable to fan operation in cooling
mode, DOE maintains its proposal to
account for the electrical consumption
of furnace fans while performing all
active mode functions (i.e., heating,
cooling, and constant circulation). DOE
recognizes that furnace fans are used not
just for circulating air through ductwork
during heating operation, but also for
circulating air during cooling and
constant-circulation operation. DOE
anticipates that higher airflow-control
settings are factory set for cooling
operation. Therefore, DOE expects that
the electrical energy consumption of a
furnace fan is generally higher while
performing the cooling function.
Additionally, the design of the fan as
well as its typical operating
characteristics (i.e., ESP levels during
operation in different modes) is directly
related to the performance requirements
in cooling mode. DOE is also concerned
that excluding some functions from
consideration in rating furnace fan
performance would incentivize
manufacturers to design fans that are
optimized to perform efficiently at the
selected rating airflow-control settings
but that are not efficient over the broad
range of field operating conditions. In
DOE’s view, in order to obtain a
complete assessment of overall
performance and a metric that reflects
the product’s electrical energy
consumption during a representative
average use cycle, the test procedure
must account for electrical consumption
in a set of airflow-control settings that
spans all active mode functions. This
would ensure a more accurate
accounting of the benefits of improved
furnace fans.
DOE is aware that electrical
consumption of the fan is accounted for
in the SEER and HSPF metrics that DOE
uses for CAC and heat pump products.
However, DOE does not agree with First
Co.’s interpretation that the EPCA
language limits DOE’s authority to
setting one standard for each major
product function and precludes DOE
from rating furnace fan consumption in
operating modes that are accounted for
by these metrics. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5))
EPCA’s language in section 6295(o)(5) is
phrased in the permissive, rather than
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
the restrictive.6 In DOE’s view, this
permissive language does not impose a
limitation on DOE’s authority to
regulate fan electrical consumption for
these products across all operating
modes. Furthermore, it is inapposite in
this situation, where two different
products are being regulated, one the
CAC or heat pump product, and one the
separate furnace fan product, which
may or may not be incorporated into a
CAC or heat pump. SEER and HSPF are
used to test cooling and heating
performance of a CAC or heat pump
product, whereas FER rates airflow
performance of a furnace fan product.
While furnace fan airflow performance
contributes to cooling and heating
performance, manufacturers can
improve SEER and HSPF without
improving fan performance. In short,
SEER- and HSPF-based standards do not
directly target the efficiency of furnace
fans. DOE recognizes that the energy
savings in cooling mode from higherefficiency furnace fans used in some
higher efficiency CAC and heat pumps
is already accounted for in the analysis
of standards on those products as a
result. DOE conducted its preliminary
analysis to avoid double-counting these
benefits by excluding furnace fan
electricity savings that were already
included in DOE’s analysis for CAC and
heat pump products. Section 2.7 of
chapter 2 and chapter 8 of the
preliminary analysis TSD provide a
discussion of this issue.
B. AHRI Test Method
In the NOPR in response to comments
on the June 2010 Framework Document,
DOE proposed to incorporate by
reference ANSI/AMCA 210–07, citing
comments that manufacturers currently
use ANSI/AMCA 210–07 to measure
furnace fan performance. The NOPR
provides a more detailed discussion of
DOE’s consideration of ANSI/AMCA
210–07 and alternative reference
standards. 77 FR at 28677 (May 15,
2012). Commenting on the NOPR,
manufacturers recommended that DOE
incorporate provisions from ASHRAE
37 instead of ANSI/AMCA 210–07.
Ingersoll Rand commented that fan
performance data from a DOE test
procedure that references ANSI/AMCA
210–07 would not be consistent with
existing data, which is generated using
ASHRAE 37. (Ingersoll Rand, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 30)
Lennox asserted that if DOE uses a test
procedure that specifies an airflow
6 Section 6295(o)(5) provides as follows: ‘‘The
Secretary may set more than 1 energy conservation
standard for products that serve more than 1 major
function by setting 1 energy conservation standard
for each major function.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
calculation, then ANSI/AMCA 210 is
not the appropriate standard. According
to Lennox, ASHRAE 37 would be more
appropriate if DOE specifies airflow
calculations. (Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.)
Goodman stated that its airflow
measurements for furnaces are currently
performed using ASHRAE 37 setups and
calculations. Further, Goodman pointed
out that DOE test procedures to measure
airflow and power input for central air
conditioners and heat pumps as defined
in Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430 require that furnace fan
performance be measured per ASHRAE
37 for use in determining ratings for
SEER and HSPF. Therefore, according to
Goodman, DOE’s proposal to use ANSI/
AMCA 210–07 would require
manufacturers to test the same product
with two different test methods to rate
furnace fans. Goodman believes that
such an outcome is contrary to
Congressional intent and the consumers’
best interests. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.)
Morrison added that ANSI/AMCA 210–
07 is designed to test stand-alone fans,
while ASHRAE 37 is more appropriate
for testing fans as part of appliances.
(Morrison, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 38.) Interested parties
commented that in-situ testing (i.e.
installed in the HVAC product) is more
appropriate than testing the furnace fan
removed from the product in which it
is integrated. In a joint comment, ASAP,
ACEEE, NRDC, and NCLC, hereinafter
referred to as the ‘‘Joint Commenters,’’
supported DOE’s decision to test the
furnace fan as factory-installed in an
HVAC product, which would more
accurately account for as-deployed
energy consumption. (Joint
Commenters, No. 13 at p. 2.) ACEEE
explained that the impacts of the
aerodynamics of the HVAC product
cabinet on fan performance cannot be
measured by testing the fan removed
from the cabinet. Unico, Inc. (‘‘Unico’’)
and Ingersoll Rand echoed these
sentiments, stating that the furnace fan
should be tested as part of the appliance
because the appliance components
dictate fan performance. (Unico, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 94;
Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 97.) Adjuvant
stated that testing air handlers is more
difficult than DOE’s proposal depicts
because of the necessity to specify
appurtenances and other issues like
cabinet leakage. (Adjuvant, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 29, 30,
47.)
DOE agrees with interested parties
that furnace fans should be tested in a
laboratory and as factory-installed in the
HVAC product with which it is
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
integrated (i.e., in-situ) to account for
the impacts of airflow path design on
furnace fan performance. In the NOPR,
DOE included language in the proposed
regulatory text that specified that
furnace fans be tested in-situ. 77 FR at
28699 (May 15, 2012). DOE recognizes
that the preamble language of the NOPR
may not have been clear in this regard.
In this notice, DOE proposes to specify
that furnace fans be tested in-situ.
In written comments, AHRI (with
support from Goodman, Ingersoll Rand,
Lennox, and Morrison) proposed an
alternative test method that they argue
would result in accurate and repeatable
FER values that are comparable to the
FER values resulting from the test
procedure proposed in the NOPR, but at
significantly reduced test burden.
(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17
at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1;
Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) AHRI
recommends that DOE specify the
following procedures to generate the
measurements used to rate furnace fan
performance (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3):
• The furnace should be set up on the
test stand that is used to measure AFUE.
• Initially, the furnace should be
operated in the maximum airflowcontrol setting having adjusted the duct
restrictions to achieve the external static
pressure (ESP) proposed in the NOPR
while in the heating mode (i.e., firing
the burner). Fuel input, temperature rise
and power should be measured.
• Subsequently, power should be
measured while operating the furnace in
the heating airflow-control setting and
again while operating the furnace in the
constant circulation airflow-control
setting, both without changing the
initial duct restrictions in any way and
without firing the furnace.
• The maximum airflow used to
normalize the FER metric should be
calculated (instead of measured
directly) based on the measured
temperature rise, measured fuel input,
AFUE, and the known heat capacity of
air.
• Measurements should be taken at
nominal voltage and no voltage
adjustments should be allowed.
• FER should be calculated using the
annual operating hours that DOE
proposed in the NOPR.
AHRI estimates an approximate 80–
90% reduction in testing burden
through the adoption of its proposed
test method. AHRI stated that this
reduction is due, in part, to
manufacturers not having to acquire or
use any test equipment beyond the
equipment that is already used to
conduct the testing specified in the DOE
furnace test procedure (i.e., the AFUE
test setup). (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) Most
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
of the products to which this procedure
applies are furnaces subject to the DOE
furnace test procedure. Rheem
Manufacturing Company (‘‘Rheem’’),
Morrison, and Lennox also identified
using the same test stand for FER and
AFUE testing as an opportunity to
minimize burden on manufacturers.
(Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 21
at p. 7; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) Lennox
stated that by requiring an additional
setup and test process far outside the
AFUE testing requirements, the burden
on the engineering and documentation
side of the proposed procedure is
significant. (Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.)
Mortex, a small manufacturer, requested
that furnace fan testing have a minimum
burden on industry and be within the
economic capabilities of the small
manufacturers that would be impacted.
Mortex explained that small
manufacturers are low production
volume, high product mix
manufacturers and only build products
when they are ordered. (Mortex, No. 18
at p. 2.) Goodman echoed Mortex’s
sentiments, stating that the cost to
initiate and perform tests using the
certified test facility required by ANSI/
AMCA 210 as proposed in the NOPR is
disproportionally burdensome to small
manufacturers that produce 100 to 200
made-to-order units each needing
individual certification. (Mortex, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 21, 232;
Goodman, No. 17 at p. 2.) According to
Mortex, capturing the airflow and
electrical input power at a few
additional airflow-control settings as
part of testing for AFUE and Eae, as
suggested by AHRI, would be relatively
inexpensive. Mortex added that this
simplified method should not require
any capital outlay as compared to DOE’s
proposed method, which is estimated to
require $150,000 for a code tester setup.
(Mortex, No. 18 at p. 2.) Mortex stated
during the public meeting that using the
AFUE set up and calculating airflow
based on temperature rise to rate
furnace fans would be feasible for small
manufacturers. Mortex added the caveat
that such a method would only be
feasible if paired with a reasonable
confidence level (i.e., the statistical
confidence limit expressed as a
percentage that must be achieved for the
results of the group of samples tested
according to the proposed sampling
plan). (Mortex, Public Meeting
Transcript, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 234.) A detailed discussion
of the proposed sampling plan,
including the proposed confidence
limit, is provided in section III.D.
AHRI attributed some of the projected
reduction in burden of its recommended
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19613
test method to the labor savings that
manufacturers would experience with
respect to conducting tests and
calculations. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.)
Allied Air Enterprises (‘‘Allied Air’’)
commented that the time and cost of
conducting the proposed test procedure
would be unduly burdensome. (Allied
Air, No 23 at p. 20.) Rheem and Lennox
commented that measuring airflow is
difficult, labor- and capital-intensive,
and not necessary to rate furnace fan
electrical energy use. (Rheem, No. 25 at
p. 3; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) As
mentioned previously, Mortex suggested
that airflow could be calculated by
using the temperature rise methodology
already employed for the DOE furnace
test procedure prior to AHRI submitting
its recommended alternative test
method. (Mortex, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 234.) Goodman
performed tests according to both DOE’s
proposed procedure and AHRI’s
suggested method and found that testing
time is reduced by almost 60% using
AHRI’s method. (Goodman, No. 17 at p.
3.) Rheem also conducted tests
according to both procedures and stated
that the time to test a single-stage
furnace was reduced from 4 hours to 45
minutes by using the AHRI method.
(Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.)
AHRI claimed that its suggested
method would eliminate potential
issues associated with fitting quadratic
curves to the test data to derive FER as
proposed in the NOPR. According to
AHRI and Morrison, the quadratic
curves can be easily manipulated.
(AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Morrison, No. 21
at p. 5.) Furthermore, AHRI stated that
the quadratic curves can be significantly
skewed through a single incorrect
measurement. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.)
Morrison agrees that DOE should
abandon the system curve approach in
favor of AHRI’s proposed method
because eliminating the need to curve fit
and find the intersection of second
order polynomials would reduce the
burden on manufacturers. Morrison
stated that the added burden of the
NOPR method does not provide any
added value to the purpose of saving
energy, guiding consumers in making
correct choices, or enhancing the
regulatory process. (Morrison, No. 21 at
p. 5.) NEEA explained that the need for
quadratic curve-fitting could be
eliminated by establishing the specified
external static pressure values in a
specific mode, and then running the
remaining tests in other modes without
modifying the physical test apparatus
set-up. NEEA and NPPC suggested that
DOE consider this simplified approach.
According to NEEA and NPPC, the
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
result would be testing an air handler
against a fixed intake and discharge
configuration, accepting whatever static
pressure the system generates when
testing in modes other than the initial
mode. NEEA and NPCC contended that
this is how duct systems work in the
field—they are in a fixed physical
configuration and the air handler deals
with the external static pressure created
and imposed, regardless of what mode
it is in. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 22 at pp. 2–
3.)
Goodman commented that test results
show that FER values generated using
AHRI’s test method are within 5% of the
FER values generated using the test
procedure proposed in the NOPR.
(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.) Rheem’s test
results show similar results. (Rheem,
No. 25 at p. 4.)
Efficiency advocates agreed that some
hybrid of reference standards could be
used to develop a test procedure that is
less burdensome than wholly adopting
ANSI/AMCA 210. However, the Joint
Commenters stated that simply
implementing ASHRAE 37 is an
incomplete solution because this
method lacks an electrical energy
consumption measurement. (Joint
Commenters, No. 13 at p. 3.) The CA
IOU advised DOE to develop a hybrid
test procedure that draws from AMCA
210, ASHRAE 37, and AHRI 210–240
but emphasized that portions of AMCA
210 are needed for measuring fan power
at different airflow rates. (CA IOU, No.
20 at p. 1.) While unclear from CA IOU’s
comments, DOE infers that the CA IOU
are referring to provisions for measuring
fan performance in multiple airflowcontrol settings.
In today’s notice, DOE proposes to
adopt a modified version of the
alternative test method proposed by
AHRI. DOE agrees that the key concept
embodied in the alternative method
suggested by AHRI and manufacturers
(using temperature rise to determine
airflow) can be a viable approach to
obtain accurate and repeatable FER
values at significantly reduced burden.
The methods suggested by AHRI are
already used in existing industry and
DOE test methods. ASHRAE 37 includes
determining airflow based on
temperature rise as an alternative
method to using differential pressure
across nozzles. In addition, the DOE test
procedure for furnaces includes well
established and accurate methods for
measurement of temperature rise, fuel
input, and steady state combustion
efficiency based on flue gas temperature
and carbon dioxide concentrations.
Additionally, DOE recognizes the
opportunity to reduce test burden by: (1)
Aligning the furnace fan test set up and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
procedures with those of the existing
DOE furnace test procedure; and (2)
maintaining the same duct restrictions
throughout the test after initial reference
system conditions are met in lieu of the
previously proposed methods of making
multiple determinations in each airflowcontrol setting and curve-fitting to
identify operating points. DOE also
agrees with advocates and utilities that
the proposed test procedure should
reflect field ESP conditions and measure
furnace fan electrical input power in
multiple airflow-control settings. The
AHRI method includes provisions that
meet these goals. DOE has considered
the AHRI approach and has concluded
that some clarifications and
modifications are necessary to make the
approach more practicable and accurate.
For these reasons, DOE proposes to
adopt a modified version of the
alternative furnace fan test procedure
proposed by AHRI.
DOE proposes the following additions
and modifications to the test method
recommended by AHRI:
• Airflow in the maximum airflowcontrol setting would be calculated
based on measured air temperature rise
when the HVAC product is in a heatingmode airflow-control setting rather than
in the maximum airflow-control setting.
• In the airflow calculation presented
by AHRI, AFUE would be replaced by
a function of steady state efficiency
(EffySS), measured fuel energy input rate
(QIN), jacket losses (LJ), and fan
electrical input power (EHeat) measured
according to ASHRAE 103–2007 at the
specified operating conditions.
• External static pressure would be
measured as specified in ASHRAE 37.
• Additional thermocouples would be
added to the outlet grids used to
measure temperature rise.
• Use of a mixer, as described in
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–1986 (RA
2006), would be required to minimize
outlet flow temperature gradients if the
temperature difference between any two
thermocouples is greater than 1.5 °F.
• Greater temperature measurement
accuracy and tighter stabilization
criteria would be specified.
• The 18 °F temperature rise
minimum specified by ASHRAE 37–
2005 would be incorporated by
reference.
Each of the listed modifications is
described and explained in more detail
in subsequent sections.
1. Calculating Maximum Airflow
AHRI proposes to calculate airflow
based on measured temperature rise,
rated input heat capacity, and AFUE
using the following equation (AHRI, No.
26 at p. 23):
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Where:
Q = airflow, in cubic feet per minute (CFM),
AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency, as
determined by the DOE furnace test
procedure,
QIN = fuel energy maximum nameplate input
rate at steady-state operating (including
any pilot light input), in British Thermal
Units per hour (Btu/h),
1.08 = Conversion from airflow and
temperature rise to heating rate, and
DT = measured temperature rise.
DOE is concerned that using AFUE
and the nameplate fuel energy input
rate, as defined in AHRI’s proposal,
would not result in accurate
representations of airflow at the
proposed operating conditions because:
(1) Neither parameter is measured at the
proposed operating conditions; and (2)
AFUE is a function of off-cycle
parameters such as infiltration heat loss
and pilot light heat generation, which
do not contribute to the temperature rise
proposed to be used to calculate airflow.
While temperature rise would be
measured at the ESP levels outlined in
AHRI’s alternative method (which are
equivalent to those proposed in the
NOPR and herein), AFUE and
nameplate input rate would be
determined based on measurements
taken at the ESP levels required by the
DOE furnace test procedure (i.e.
specified in ASHRAE 103–1993), which
are significantly lower. Also, results
from a 2002 comparison of AFUE and
steady stat efficiency show that the
steady state efficiency ranges from zero
to three percent higher than AFUE.7
More recent DOE tests yielded similar
results, with steady state efficiency
reaching as high as six percent higher
than AFUE. DOE proposes to use steady
state efficiency and fuel energy input
measured at the proposed operating
conditions, instead of AFUE and
nameplate fuel energy input, to address
these discrepancies and minimize the
resulting inaccuracies in calculated
airflow. Manufacturers would only be
required to take two additional
measurements (flue or stack gas
temperature and carbon dioxide
concentration) using equipment that is
already in place for AFUE testing as a
result of the proposed modification.
DOE recognizes that replacing AFUE
with steady state combustion efficiency
at operating conditions would also
require that jacket losses and the usable
heat generated by the motor be included
7 Public Workshop on Residential Furnace and
Boiler Venting. May 2002. https://
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/furnboil_050802_reswh.html.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.030</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19614
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
19615
methods for accounting for these
additional factors. Accordingly, DOE
proposes to use the following equation
to calculate airflow:
Where:
Q = airflow in CFM,
EffySS = steady state efficiency in % as
determined according to ASHRAE 103–
2007 at the specified operating
conditions,
LJ = jacket loss in % as determined according
to ASHRAE 103–2007 at specified
operating conditions,
QIN = measured fuel energy input in Btu/h at
specified operating conditions based on
the fuel’s high heating value determined
as required in section 8.2.1.3 or 8.2.2.3
of ASHRAE 103–2007,
3413 = conversion of kW to Btu/h;
EHeat = electrical energy to the furnace fan
motor in kW that is recovered as useable
heat,
1.08 = conversion from airflow and
temperature rise to heating rate, and
DT = temperature rise measured at specified
operating conditions.
DOE requests comments on the
proposed changes to the equation for
calculating airflow. DOE recognizes that
the use of the 1.08 conversion factor
assumes that the airflow has standard
air properties (e.g., standard air density
and specific heat). DOE anticipates that
the properties of the airflow under test
may deviate from these values at actual
test conditions, resulting in inaccurate
airflow calculation results. DOE expects
that variation in airflow density would
be the significant driver of these
inaccuracies. Therefore, DOE also
requests comment on whether the
conversion factor should be adjusted by
the barometric pressure at test
conditions. (See Issue 1 under ‘‘Issues
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE is concerned that certain of the
test conditions proposed by AHRI could
lead to test results that are not
representative of actual furnace fan
energy use. AHRI’s recommended
method specifies that the maximum
airflow be calculated based on a
temperature rise measurement taken
while operating the furnace in the
maximum airflow-control setting and
firing the burner. (AHRI, No. 26 at p.
21.) DOE is aware that the maximum
airflow-control setting is often
designated for cooling operation and not
for heating. DOE anticipates that firing
the burner while the furnace is in the
maximum airflow-control setting is not
typical of furnace operation, and that
achieving this combination of settings
by interfacing with the furnace controls
may not be possible. The AHRI
approach also specifies electrical input
power in the heating airflow-control
setting be measured without firing the
burner.
DOE proposes to modify the AHRI
recommended method to specify that
maximum airflow be calculated based
on a temperature rise measurement
taken while operating the furnace in the
rated heating airflow-control setting and
firing the burner at the heat input
capacity associated with that airflowcontrol setting. For more details
regarding the proposed rated airflowcontrol settings, refer to Table II.2 in the
Summary of the NOPR, 77 FR at 28676
(May 15, 2012). DOE expects that these
proposed combinations of operating
conditions are typical of field furnace
use. These requirements would help
ensure that test results are
representative of actual furnace fan
energy use, and would minimize the
potential difficulties associated with
firing the furnace in an airflow-control
setting not intended for heating. DOE is
not proposing any changes in this notice
to the rated airflow-control settings
proposed in the NOPR. The procedure
proposed herein would require that the
temperature rise measurement be taken
in the default heating airflow-control
setting for single-stage furnaces and in
the default low heating airflow-control
setting for multi-stage and modulating
furnaces.
DOE recognizes that, compared to
AHRI’s suggested method, more
complex calculations are required to
determine the airflow in the maximum
airflow-control setting based on a
temperature rise measurement in the
heating airflow-control setting. DOE
proposes to specify that ESP
measurements be taken in conjunction
with the temperature rise and furnace
fan electrical input power
measurements for each rated airflowcontrol setting. Airflow in the rated
heating airflow-control setting can be
calculated using the airflow calculation
equation proposed above. Once the
airflow in the rated heating airflowcontrol setting has been calculated, the
physical constant (kref) can be calculated
using the equation below. kref
characterizes the reference system duct
restrictions set in the initial test
conditions.
DOE is aware that ESP, airflow, and
electrical input measurements could
vary due to the different physical
properties of air (particularly density) at
higher temperature. As a result, a
different kref may apply when the
furnace is firing as compared with
room-temperature operation without
firing. To a first order, the pressure drop
imposed by flow through ductwork can
be approximated as being proportional
to fluid density multiplied by the square
of the velocity. The velocity for a given
mass flow is proportional to the inverse
of the density. The density is inversely
Where:
kref = physical constant that characterizes the
reference system duct restrictions,
ESPHeat = external static pressure measured at
the operating point in the heating
airflow-control setting, and
QHeat = airflow in the rated heating airflowcontrol setting.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.020</GPH>
EP02AP13.021</GPH>
The same value for kref can be used to
characterize the system for all airflowcontrol settings because the same duct
restrictions would be used for all test
settings. Airflow in the maximum
airflow-control setting would be
calculated using kref and the ESP
measured in the maximum airflowcontrol setting using the following
equation.
EP02AP13.019</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
in the calculation. The DOE test
procedure for furnaces already includes
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Where:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Where:
THeat = Outlet air temperature in the heating
airflow-control setting, and
TMax = Outlet air temperature in the
maximum airflow-control setting.
DOE requests comment on the
proposed adjustment to the QMax
calculation above, which would result
in greater accuracy in determination of
the maximum airflow rate. DOE also
requests comments on the proposed
modified method for calculating airflow
in the maximum airflow-control setting.
Specifically, DOE requests comments on
how ESP, furnace fan electrical input
power, and airflow measurements are
impacted by temperature rise. DOE also
seeks comment on how those
relationships would impact the
accuracy of the calculated value of QMax
and, ultimately, FER. (See Issue 2 under
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE recognizes that a more accurate
measurement of temperature rise could
be made at higher temperature rises
because the allowable error in
temperature measurements would
represent a lower percentage of the
overall temperature rise. For example,
the maximum allowable proposed error
of ± 1 °F (± 0.5 °F at both the inlet and
outlet) would represent an approximate
error of 3 percent for a temperature rise
of 30 °F, and half as much for a 60 °F
temperature rise. DOE is aware that
operating the furnace in the reduced
heat setting for multi-stage furnaces
would result in a lower temperature rise
than if fired in the maximum heat
setting. DOE requests comment on
whether the maximum airflow should
be calculated based on the temperature
rise measured while operating the
furnace fan in the maximum default
heat airflow-control setting and at
maximum heat input capacity to
minimize the effect of temperature
measurement error on the overall FER
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
r = Air density,
v = Air velocity,
T = Air temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
(°F), and
460 = Conversion from degrees Fahrenheit to
degrees Rankine.
For operation of a furnace, the higher
ESP that occurs when it is firing would
reduce the mass flow of air.
Consequently, the value of QMax, as
calculated according to the QMax
equation proposed by DOE above would
be slightly lower than the actual
calculation. (See Issue 3 under ‘‘Issues
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE is concerned that at higher
elevations the temperature rise would
be greater due to reduced air mass flow,
resulting in a higher calculated airflow.
DOE requests comments on the
magnitude of potential elevation
impacts on calculated airflow and FER
values. DOE also requests comments on
whether specifications, such as a
maximum test elevation or elevation
adjustment factor, should be used to
avoid circumvention associated with
conducting this test at high elevation.
(See Issue 4 under ‘‘Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of
this SNOPR.)
2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure
Measurements
DOE believes that more detailed
specifications for setting and measuring
ESP are required than those in the AHRI
suggested test method. AHRI’s suggested
test method specifies that the reference
system ESP be achieved by
‘‘symmetrically restricting the outlet of
the test duct.’’ (AHRI, No. 26 at pp. 8,
19, 20) The AHRI test method does not
provide details on the equipment or
procedures that should be used to meet
this requirement. (DOE is aware that
independent test labs typically apply
cardboard ducting or tape to the corners
of the outlet to achieve the desired ESP.)
DOE requests comments on whether one
or more methods for restricting the
outlet duct should be included in the
test procedure. (See Issue 5 under
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
According to AHRI’s suggested test
method, use of a return air duct in the
test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at
p. 20.) DOE proposes to also allow for
the optional use of a return air duct;
however, DOE is concerned that ESP
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
maximum airflow. This is because
ESPHeat would be slightly elevated and
QHeat slightly reduced for the hot flow
that occurs during the measurement
relative to the way the system would
behave for room temperature operating
conditions. DOE proposes an
adjustment in the QMax equation
proposed by DOE above to account for
the elevated temperature in the
ductwork during the measurement, as
follows:
may differ when measured with a return
air duct compared to when measured
without a return air duct. DOE believes
that each different motor type may react
differently with the use of a return air
duct, but the impacts on the FER
measurements may be small. DOE
requests comments on the ESP
measurements and FER values that
result when not using a return air duct
compared to when a return air duct is
used, and whether the test procedure
should explicitly require use of a return
air duct. (See Issue 6 under ‘‘Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section
V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI’s suggested test method
specifies that ESP measurements be
made between the furnace openings and
any restrictions or elbows in the test
plenums or ducts and as close as
possible to the air supply and return
openings of the furnace. (AHRI, No. 26
at p. 20) DOE proposes to incorporate by
reference the ASHRAE 37 provisions for
measuring ESP (sections 6.4 and 6.5),
which are consistent with AHRI’s
suggested specifications and provide
more detail. DOE anticipates that these
more detailed specifications would
minimize variations in test setups and,
in turn, improve repeatability. DOE
proposes to specify that ESP be
measured according to the setup
illustrated in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37
when a return air duct is used. This
setup would require direct measurement
of the static pressure difference between
the inlet and outlet of the unit under
test as opposed to taking separate static
measurements at the inlet and outlet
and calculating the difference between
the two measurements. Direct
measurement in this context means that
the inlet and outlet pressure signal
tubing would be connected on opposite
sides of a single manometer, rather than
using two manometers or transducers,
each being open to the ambient on one
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.023</GPH>
proportional to absolute temperature
(i.e. the temperature expressed in
degrees Kelvin or Rankine). Hence, the
relationship between ESP and
temperature for a fixed mass flow of air
approximately exhibits the following
proportionality:
EP02AP13.022</GPH>
19616
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
side. DOE proposes to specify that ESP
be measured according to the setup
illustrated in Figure 7 of ASHRAE 37
when a return air duct is not used. DOE
does not anticipate any issues with
specifying ASHRAE 37 provisions for
measuring ESP because, as mentioned
above, manufacturers commented that
ASHRAE 37 is a widely used standard
for testing HVAC products and is
recommended for rating furnace fans.
DOE requests comments on its proposed
provisions for measuring ESP, which are
adopted from ASHRAE 37–2005. (See
Issue 7 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of this
SNOPR.)
3. Temperature Rise Measurements
DOE recognizes that FER results
generated according to the proposed test
procedure are sensitive to the
temperature rise measurement that
would be used to calculate the airflow
in the maximum airflow-control setting.
DOE expects that the equipment and
methods used to measure temperature
rise in the AHRI method can be
improved, which would result in a more
accurate and repeatable test procedure.
The modifications that DOE proposes
are mostly derived from the provisions
of the alternative method for calculating
airflow specified in section 7.7.1.2 and
7.7.4 of ASHRAE 37–2005.
AHRI’s recommended method adopts
ASHRAE 103–2007 provisions that
specify that temperature measurements
shall have an error no greater than ±2 °F.
In the worst case scenario, an error of 2
°F on both the inlet and outlet
temperature measurements could result
in an error of 4 °F. DOE estimates that
an error of 4 °F for the temperature rise
measurement could yield an error of
approximately 10% in FER for a typical
temperature rise between 30 °F and 60
°F.
DOE proposes to specify that
temperature measurements have an
error no greater than ±0.5 °F. The
accuracy requirements of existing test
standards that are used to test these
products are more stringent—Table 1 in
section 4 of ASHRAE 37–2005 requires
temperature measurement accuracy of
±0.2 °F. DOE requests comment on
whether ±0.5 °F is reasonably
achievable. (See Issue 8 under ‘‘Issues
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI’s proposed method does not
include a minimum temperature rise
requirement. DOE is concerned that the
allowable error in temperature
measurements coupled with a low
temperature rise could result in
inaccurate test results. For this reason,
DOE proposes to require a minimum
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
temperature rise of 18 °F, as specified in
ASHRAE 37–2005. DOE notes that with
its proposed ±0.5 °F temperature
measurement accuracy requirement and
its proposed minimum 18 °F
temperature rise, the maximum
potential error in measured airflow
associated with the temperature rise
measurement is approximately 5.6%.
DOE requests comments on whether a
minimum temperature rise should be
required and, if so, what is an
appropriate value for the minimum
temperature rise. (See Issue 9 under
‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’
in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI’s recommended method adopts
the stabilization criteria of the DOE test
procedure for residential furnaces. 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N,
section 7.0. According to section 7.0 of
the DOE test procedure for furnaces,
which references section 8.0 of
ASHRAE 103–1993, steady-state
conditions for gas and oil furnaces are
attained as indicated by a temperature
variation in three successive readings,
taken 15 minutes apart, of not more
than:
• 3 °F in the stack gas temperature for
furnaces equipped with draft diverters;
• 5 °F in the stack gas temperature for
furnaces equipped with either draft
hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent
systems; and
• 1 °F in the flue gas temperature for
condensing furnaces.
For electric furnaces, steady-state
conditions are reached as indicated by
a temperature variation of not more than
5 °F in the outlet temperature in four
successive temperature readings taken
15 minutes apart.
DOE is concerned that the
temperature variations specified in the
above stabilization criteria are not
stringent enough to maximize accuracy
and repeatability for evaluating furnace
fan performance. As mentioned above,
the FER results generated according to
the proposed test procedure are
sensitive to temperature variation
because they are a function of the
airflow calculated using measured
temperature rise. DOE proposes the
following stabilization criteria to
address this concern. For testing furnace
fans used in gas and oil furnaces, DOE
proposes that steady-state conditions are
attained as indicated by a temperature
variation in three successive readings,
taken 15 minutes apart, of not more
than:
• 1.5 °F in the stack gas temperature
for furnaces equipped with draft
diverters;
• 2.5 °F in the stack gas temperature
for furnaces equipped with either draft
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19617
hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent
systems; and
• 0.5 °F in the flue gas temperature
for condensing furnaces.
For electric furnaces, DOE proposes
that steady-state conditions are reached
as indicated by a temperature variation
of not more than 1 °F in the outlet
temperature in four successive
temperature readings taken 15 minutes
apart. DOE requests comments on
whether the proposed stabilization
criteria are reasonably achievable, and
whether the stabilization criteria for the
AFUE test would be sufficient to assure
that the entire furnace has thermally
stabilized to a point such that the
measured air temperature rise would no
longer significantly change. (See Issue
10 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment’’ in section V.B of this
SNOPR.)
AHRI’s approach does not include
provisions to account for potential inlet
or outlet airflow temperature gradients.
DOE is concerned that temperature
gradients are likely to be present, which
would compromise the accuracy and
repeatability of the temperature rise
measurement results. DOE proposes to
specify the use of a mixer, as depicted
in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37–2005,
which references ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 41.1–1986 (RA 2001), to
minimize outlet flow temperature
gradients if the temperature difference
between any two thermocouples of the
outlet air temperature grid is greater
than 1.5 °F. DOE has not had the
opportunity to evaluate the potential
inaccuracies associated with allowing
larger temperature gradients, and
instead bases this selection on its use as
the maximum allowable temperature
difference threshold in ASHRAE 210/
240 for the ‘‘C’’ and ‘‘D’’ tests for CAC
products. These tests use temperature
rise and airflow measurement to
determine cooling capacity. The
proposed furnace fan test method uses
the inverse of the relationship for these
factors to determine airflow based on
measured temperature rise and input
heat capacity. Hence, the implications
for temperature gradients to result in
measurement errors are equivalent. DOE
requests comment on whether the effect
on static pressure of adding a mixer
would prevent the test setup from
achieving the ESP levels specified in the
DOE test procedure for residential
furnaces or the lower ESP levels
specified in this notice for measuring
fan performance in the lowest rated
airflow setting. DOE also seeks comment
on whether additional thermocouples
are needed to measure the inlet air
temperature. (See Issue 11 under ‘‘Issues
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19618
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in
section V.B of this SNOPR.)
C. Definitions
DOE proposes to adopt all definitions
in section 3 of ASHRAE 103, which are
already codified in section 2 of
Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430.
DOE also proposes to include the
additional and modified definitions
listed below.
• Active mode means the condition in
which the product in which the furnace
fan is integrated is connected to a power
source and circulating air through
ductwork.
• Airflow-control settings are
programmed or wired control system
configurations that control a fan to
achieve discrete, differing ranges of
airflow, often designated for performing
a specific HVAC function (e.g., cooling,
heating, or constant circulation),
without manual adjustment other than
interaction with a user-operable control
such as a thermostat that meets the
manufacturer specifications for installed
use found in the product literature
shipped with the unit.
• Default airflow-control settings are
the airflow-control settings specified for
installed use by the manufacturer in the
product literature shipped with the
product in which the furnace fan is
integrated. In instances where a
manufacturer specifies multiple airflowcontrol settings for a given function to
account for varying installation
scenarios, the highest airflow-control
setting specified for the given function
shall be used for the DOE test
procedure.
• External static pressure means the
difference between static pressures
measured in the outlet duct and return
air opening (or return air duct when
used for testing) of the product in which
the furnace fan is integrated.
• Furnace fan is an electricallypowered device used in a consumer
product for the purpose of circulating
air through ductwork.
• Modular blower means a product
which only uses single-phase electric
current, and which:
(a) Is designed to be the principal air
circulation source for the living space of
a residence;
(b) Is not contained within the same
cabinet as a furnace or central air
conditioner; and
(c) Is designed to be paired with
HVAC products that have a heat input
rate of less than 225,000 Btu per hour
and/or cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu per hour.
• Off mode means the condition in
which the product in which the furnace
fan is integrated is either not connected
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
to the power source or connected to the
power source but not energized.
• Standby mode means the condition
in which the product in which the
furnace fan is integrated is connected to
the power source and the furnace fan is
not circulating air.
D. Sampling Plans
DOE provides sampling plans for all
covered products. The purpose of a
sampling plan is to provide statistically
valid representations of energy
consumption or energy efficiency for
each covered product by capturing the
variability inherent in the
manufacturing and testing process.
These sampling plans apply to all
aspects of the EPCA program for
consumer products, including public
representations, labeling, and
compliance with energy conservation
standards. 10 CFR 429.11. In the NOPR,
DOE proposed that the existing
sampling plans used for furnaces be
adopted and applied to measures of
energy consumption for furnace fans. 77
FR at 28691 (May 15, 2012).
AHRI and manufacturers commented
that the 97.5 percent confidence limit
required by the furnace sampling plan is
too stringent. See 10 CFR 429.18(a).
Morrison and Allied Air commented on
the difficulty of obtaining accurate,
precise airflow measurements.
According to Morrison, the uncertainty
allowable per AMCA 210–07 is much
greater than what is permissible in the
furnaces sampling plan. (Morrison,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
219; Allied Air, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 218.) Unico
stated that it would have a problem with
meeting anything close to 97.5 percent
confidence. (Unico, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 224.) AHRI
stated that the confidence limits used
for the AFUE measurement are
inappropriate for the proposed electrical
measurements. (AHRI, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 226.) Ingersoll
Rand stated that the 97.5 percent
confidence limit is not going to work
and would require at least three sample
units for every model to meet the
requirement. (Ingersoll Rand, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 230.)
Carrier explained that the components
of the furnace fan (i.e. electric motors,
blower wheels and blower housings) are
more analogous to an air conditioner or
refrigerator than to the combustion
process of a fuel-fired furnace.
According to Carrier, AFUE does not
consider the electrical efficiency of the
furnace fan components. Carrier
recommends the certification and
enforcement level for furnaces fans to be
90%, which is consistent with the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
confidence limit for CAC. (Carrier, No.
10 at p. 4.) Allied Air, Goodman,
Rheem, Ingersoll Rand, Lennox, and
Morrison agreed that a sampling plan
requiring a 90 percent confidence limit
would be more appropriate. (Allied Air,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
225; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 6; Rheem,
No. 25 at p. 11; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14
at p. 2; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 5; Morrison,
No. 21 at p. 8.)
Efficiency advocates also support a
less stringent confidence interval.
Adjuvant commented that it strives for
a 90 percent confidence interval in its
work with HVAC products, which
Adjuvant finds to be an appropriate
level. Adjuvant added that it rarely uses
95 percent and would not push for
anything higher than 90. (Adjuvant,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
229.) NPCC and NEEA commented that
a 97.5 percent confidence limit is
unrealistically stringent and might
cause enforcement testing issues that are
not helpful in certifying efficiency
levels. NPCC and NEEA added that air
flow and external static pressure
measurements are prone to larger error
bands than measurements such as
power levels or temperatures, and are
likely to cause real problems for
manufacturers trying to certify to the
97.5 percent confidence limit. NPCC
and NEEA recommended using the
same confidence limits as those used for
heat pump and air conditioning
systems, which are subject to some of
the same measurement error bands as
air handlers. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 22 at p.
7.) AHRI stated that confidence limits
historically have been set without
supporting data and suggested that DOE
do a rigorous analysis to determine an
appropriate confidence limit. (AHRI,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
225.)
DOE agrees with interested parties
that the furnace fan electrical input
power measurements and external static
pressure measurements that would be
required by the test procedure proposed
herein are different and inherently more
variable than the measurements
required for AFUE. DOE proposes to
adopt a sampling plan that requires any
represented value of FER to be greater
or equal to the mean of the sample or
the upper 90 percent (one-tailed)
confidence limit divided by 1.05, as
specified in the sampling plan for CAC/
HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE will
continue to analyze the available test
data to evaluate the proposed sampling
plan parameters. DOE requests
comments, including detailed data,
regarding test result variance that it can
use to assess the appropriateness of the
sampling plan proposed herein. (See
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Issue 12 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment’’ in section V.B of this
SNOPR.)
E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy
Consumption
EPCA, as amended by the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007,
Public Law 110–140 (EISA), requires
that any final rule for a new or amended
energy conservation standard adopted
after July 1, 2010, must address standby
mode and off mode energy use pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(3)) Thus, the statute implicitly
directs DOE, when developing test
procedures to support new energy
conservation standards, to account for
standby mode and off mode energy
consumption. EISA also requires that
such energy consumption be integrated
into the overall energy efficiency,
energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor, unless the current test
procedure already accounts for standby
mode and off mode energy use. If an
integrated test procedure is technically
infeasible, DOE must prescribe a
separate standby mode and off mode
test procedure for the covered product,
if technically feasible. (42 U.S.C.
6295(gg)(2)(A)) Accordingly, DOE must
19619
address the standby mode and off mode
energy use of furnace fans in this test
procedure. However, DOE has already
fully incorporated standby mode and off
mode energy use in the test procedures
(or proposed test procedures) for all of
the products to which this test
procedure rulemaking would be
applicable.
Table III.1 summarizes the test
procedure rulemaking vehicles through
which DOE addresses standby mode
and off mode energy consumption for
the various types of products which
circulate air through ductwork.
TABLE III.1—RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES ADDRESSING FURNACE FAN STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
Status
DOE rulemaking activity
• Gas Furnaces .................................................
• Oil-fired Furnaces ...........................................
• Electric Furnaces ............................................
Addressed in separate rulemaking ..................
• Modular Blowers .............................................
• Weatherized Gas Furnace .............................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
HVAC products
Addressed in separate rulemaking ..................
• Codified Furnaces Test Procedure October
20, 2010 final rule (75 FR 64621) (10 CFR
part 430, subpart B, appendix N, section
8.0).
• September 13, 2011 NOPR (76 FR 56339).
• June 2, 2010 NOPR (75 FR 31224).
• April 1, 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 18105).
• October 24, 2011 SNOPR (76 FR 65616).
DOE prescribed the measurement of
standby mode and off mode energy use
for non-weatherized gas furnaces, oilfired furnaces, and electric furnaces in
the furnace test procedure, 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix N, section 8.0.
DOE proposed coverage of standby
mode and off mode energy use for
modular blowers and weatherized gas
furnaces in a June 2, 2010 NOPR. 75 FR
31224. In a September 13, 2011 NOPR,
DOE proposed amendments to its
furnace test procedure related to
standby mode and off mode. 76 FR
56339. DOE subsequently published one
SNOPR on April 1, 2011, and another
on October 24, 2011, regarding standby
mode and off mode test procedures for
these products. 76 FR 18105; 76 FR
65616. DOE published a furnaces
standby and off mode test procedure
final rule on December 31, 2012. 77 FR
76831. Furnace fans are integrated in
the electrical systems of the HVAC
products in which they are used and
controlled by the main control board.
Therefore, the standby mode and off
mode energy use associated with these
furnace fans would be measured by the
established or proposed test procedures
associated with these products. There is
no need for DOE to adopt additional test
procedure provisions for these modes in
this rulemaking.
F. Reference System Product Types
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
In the NOPR, DOE identified four
installation types with unique reference
system ESP considerations:
• Heating-only units;
• Units with an internal evaporator
coil;
• Units designed to be paired with an
evaporator coil; and
• Manufactured home units.
DOE anticipated that some HVAC
products may not be designed to
provide cooling. Specifically, DOE
identified hydronic air handler models
that are not designed to be paired with
an evaporator coil (either factoryinstalled or separate). DOE proposed to
specify a lower reference system ESP for
these products because they do not
experience the additional pressure drop
of circulating air past an evaporator coil.
Ingersoll Rand commented that it was
not aware of any product that would be
categorized as a heating-only product.
Ingersoll Rand added that including this
installation type could provide
manufacturers with a means of gaming
the test procedure by modifying its
furnaces to eliminate factory-installed
cooling capabilities, which would allow
such furnaces to be tested at the lower
ESP specified for heating-only units. For
these reasons, Ingersoll Rand
recommended that DOE eliminate the
heating-only designation. (Ingersoll
Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at p. 50.) NPCC and NEEA also
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
suggested that DOE eliminate the
heating-only installation type. (NPCC/
NEEA, No. 22 at p. 6)
DOE agrees with interested parties
that the heating-only installation type
should be eliminated from
consideration. The scope of
applicability of the test procedure
proposed herein does not include
hydronic air handlers as discussed in
section III.A. Consequently, DOE
proposes to eliminate the heating-only
product designation as a result.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly,
this action was not subject to review
under the Executive Order by the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) at OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IFRA) for any rule that by law
must be proposed for public comment
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19620
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency
certifies that the rule, if promulgated,
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As required by Executive Order
13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR
53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the
potential impacts of its rules on small
entities are properly considered during
the DOE rulemaking process, 68 FR
7990. DOE’s procedures and policies
may be viewed on the Office of the
General Counsel’s Web site (https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed today’s proposed rule
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003, 68 FR 7990. DOE has tentatively
concluded that the proposed rule would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities
under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The factual basis for this
certification is as follows:
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) considers an entity to be a small
business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs fewer than a threshold number
of workers as specified in 13 CFR part
121. The threshold values set forth in
these regulations use size standards and
codes established by the North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) that are available at:
https://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
8 U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of
Small Business Size Standards (August 22, 2008)
(Available at: https://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:
https://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: https://
www.energystar.gov/
index.cfm?c=furnaces.pr_furnaces).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Residential Furnaces and Boilers,11 and
the Consortium for Energy Efficiency’s
Qualifying Furnace and Boiler List
(April 2, 2009).12 From this review, DOE
identified 14 small businesses within
the furnace fan industry. DOE does not
believe the test procedure amendments
described in this proposed rule would
represent a substantial burden to any
manufacturer, including small
manufacturers, as explained below. DOE
requests comments on its
characterization of the furnace fan
industry in terms of the number of and
impacts on small businesses.
This proposed rule would establish
test procedures that would be used for
representations of energy use and to test
compliance with new energy
conservation standards, which are being
developed in a concurrent rulemaking,
for the products that are the subject of
this rulemaking. This notice proposes
new test procedures for active mode
testing for all such products. The
proposed rule would require a modified
version of the testing methods
prescribed in a public submission from
AHRI (the trade organization that
represents manufacturers of furnace
fans). The AHRI proposal recommends
test methods that are purposely aligned
with the current DOE test procedure for
furnaces in order to minimize test
burden. (AHRI, No. 26); Appendix N of
subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. As
discussed above, this would not
represent a substantial burden to any
furnace fan manufacturer, small or large.
According to AHRI, its proposed
method would result in an 80 to 90
percent reduction in test burden
compared to the test procedure
proposed by DOE in the NOPR. AHRI
attributed this reduction primarily to
manufacturers not having to acquire or
use any test equipment beyond the
equipment that is already used to
conduct the test method specified in the
DOE furnace test procedure (i.e. the
AFUE test setup). (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.)
Mortex, a small manufacturer, stated
that measuring airflow and electrical
power input at a few more airflowcontrol settings as a part of the existing
AFUE test procedure should not require
any capital outlay, unlike the method
proposed by DOE in the NOPR. (Mortex,
No. 18 at p. 2.) DOE’s proposed
modifications to AHRI’s approach
11 The California Energy Commission, Appliance
Database for Residential Furnaces and Boilers
(2009) (Available at: https://
www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/
QuickSearch.aspxh).
12 Consortium of Energy Efficiency, Qualifying
Furnace and Boiler List (April 2, 2009) (Available
at: https://www.ceedirectory.org/ceedirectory/pages/
cee/ceeDirectoryInfo.aspx).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would require minimal, low-cost
equipment beyond what is currently
used to perform the AFUE test. This
additional equipment would include
additional thermocouples and
potentially an air mixer. Manufacturers
commented that this equipment is
already used by furnace fan
manufacturers because it is required by
either ASHRAE 103 or ASHRAE 37,
which are currently used to test the
HVAC products considered in this
rulemaking. Therefore, DOE expects
little or no additional cost as the result
of the new test procedure.
DOE also expects that the time and
cost to conduct testing according to the
proposed test procedure will not be
significantly burdensome. During
discussions with manufacturers, DOE
received feedback that the time to test
a single unit according to the AHRI
method would be 30 to 60 percent less
relative to using the procedure DOE
proposed in the NOPR. Goodman
performed tests according to both DOE’s
NOPR test procedure proposal and
AHRI’s suggested method and found
that testing time is reduced by almost 60
percent using AHRI’s method.
(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3.) Rheem also
conducted tests according to both
procedures and stated that the time to
test a single-stage furnace was reduced
from 4 hours to 45 minutes by using the
AHRI method. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.)
Assuming that the labor rate for a given
manufacturer would be the same
regardless of test method, DOE expects
that the cost to conduct a test would
also be reduced by 30 to 60 percent.
DOE estimated that conducting a test
according to its NOPR proposed test
procedure would cost a small
manufacturer $2.30 per unit shipped.
This estimate is largely based on DOE’s
experience with third-party test lab
labor rates for fan testing, 77 FR at
28691 (May 15, 2012). A 30 percent
reduction would yield a conservative
cost estimate of $1.61 per unit shipped
to conduct a test according to AHRI’s
method. DOE does not expect that its
proposed modifications to the AHRI
method would result in additional costs
to conduct a test. DOE finds that the
selling price for HVAC products that
incorporate furnace fans ranges from
approximately $400 to $4,000.
Therefore, the added cost of testing per
DOE’s revised proposed test procedure
would be less than one percent of the
manufacturer selling price (and lower
than 0.1 percent in some cases).
For these reasons, DOE certifies that
the proposed rule, if adopted, would not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
regulatory flexibility analysis for this
rulemaking. DOE will provide its
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA for review under
5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
There is currently no information
collection requirement related to the test
procedure for furnace fans. In the event
that DOE proposes an energy
conservation standard with which
manufacturers must demonstrate
compliance, or otherwise proposes to
require the collection of information
derived from the testing of furnace fans
according to this test procedure, DOE
will seek OMB approval of such
information collection requirement.
Manufacturers of covered products
must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy
conservation standard, 10 CFR 429.12.
In certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their products according to the
applicable DOE test procedure,
including any amendments adopted for
that test procedure. See 10 CFR 429.13.
DOE established regulations for the
certification and recordkeeping
requirements for certain covered
consumer products and commercial
equipment, 76 FR 12422 (March 7,
2011). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping was subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement
was approved by OMB under OMB
Control Number 1910–1400. Public
reporting burden for the certification
was estimated to average 20 hours per
response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
As stated above, in the event DOE
proposes an energy conservation
standard for furnace fans with which
manufacturers must demonstrate
compliance, DOE will seek OMB
approval of the associated information
collection requirement. DOE will seek
approval either through a proposed
amendment to the information
collection requirement approved under
OMB control number 1910–1400 or as a
separate proposed information
collection requirement.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
19621
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
6297(d)). No further action is required
by Executive Order 13132.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996),
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; (3)
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. With regard to
the review required by section 3(a),
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive
agencies make every reasonable effort to
ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly
specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
(2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4)
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5)
adequately defines key terms; and (6)
addresses other important issues
affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines
issued by the Attorney General. Section
3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires
Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of
them. DOE has completed the required
review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed
rule meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
In this notice of proposed rulemaking,
DOE proposes a new test procedure for
furnace fans. DOE has determined that
this rule falls into a class of actions that
are categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE’s implementing
regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule proposes a test
procedure without affecting the amount,
quality or distribution of energy usage,
and, therefore, will not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this
rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, which applies to any
rulemaking that does not result in any
environmental impacts. Accordingly,
neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement
is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations, 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed rule and has
tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. EPCA governs and
prescribes Federal preemption of State
regulations as to energy conservation for
the products that are the subject of
today’s proposed rule. States can
petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on
criteria, set forth in EPCA (42 U.S.C.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. (Pub. L. 104–4, sec. 201
(codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531)) For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19622
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy
statement is also available at https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined today’s proposed rule
according to UMRA and its statement of
policy and determined that the rule
contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor a mandate that may result
in the expenditure by State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more in any year. Accordingly, no
assessment or analysis is required under
UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
rule would not have any impact on the
autonomy or integrity of the family as
an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988), that this regulation
would not result in any takings that
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under guidelines established by
each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
today’s proposed rule under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
significant energy action. A ‘‘significant
energy action’’ is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is
expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866, or any successor order; and (2)
is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the
Administrator of OIRA as a significant
energy action. For any proposed
significant energy action, the agency
must provide a detailed statement of
any adverse effects on energy supply,
distribution, or use should the proposal
be implemented, and of reasonable
alternatives to the action and their
expected benefits on energy supply,
distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that
today’s regulatory action, which would
prescribe the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of
furnace fans, is not a significant energy
action because the proposed test
procedure is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866 and
is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it
been designated as a significant energy
action by the Administrator of OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects on the
proposed rule.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department
of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95–
91), DOE must comply with all laws
applicable to the former Federal Energy
Administration, including section 32 of
the Federal Energy Administration Act
of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–275), as amended by
the Federal Energy Administration
Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–
70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides
in relevant part that, where a proposed
rule authorizes or requires use of
commercial standards, the notice of
proposed rulemaking must inform the
public of the use and background of
such standards. In addition, section
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32(c) requires DOE to consult with the
Attorney General and the Chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
concerning the impact of the
commercial or industry standards on
competition.
The proposed rule incorporates
testing methods contained in the DOE
test procedure for furnaces codified in
Appendix N or subpart B of part 430 of
the CFR (which incorporates by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103,
‘‘Method of Testing for Annual Fuel
Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers,’’ and
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2005,
‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment.’’ While today’s proposed
test procedure is not exclusively based
on these standards, some components of
the DOE test procedure would adopt
definitions, test setup, measurement
techniques, and additional calculations
from them without any change. The
Department has evaluated these
standards and is unable to conclude
whether they fully comply with the
requirements of section 32(b) of the
FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in
a manner that fully provides for public
participation, comment, and review).
DOE will consult with the Attorney
General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test
procedures on competition prior to
prescribing a final rule.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule before or after the public meeting,
but no later than the date provided in
the DATES section at the beginning of
this proposed rule. Interested parties
may submit comments using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this SNOPR.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies staff only. Your contact
information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
compact disk (CD), if feasible, in which
case it is not necessary to submit
printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes)
will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:56 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English, and are free
of any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
non-confidential with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items; (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from
other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality; (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure; (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time; and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments
on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is
particularly interested in receiving
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19623
comments and views of interested
parties concerning the following issues:
1. Airflow Equation
DOE is concerned that using AFUE
and QIN, as defined in AHRI’s proposal,
would not result in accurate
representations of airflow at the
proposed operating conditions because
neither parameter is measured at the
proposed operating conditions. DOE
proposes to use steady state combustion
efficiency and fuel energy input
measured at the proposed operating
conditions instead of AFUE and QIN to
address this discrepancy and minimize
the potential resulting inaccuracies in
calculated airflow. DOE recognizes that
replacing AFUE with steady state
combustion efficiency would also
require that jacket losses and the usable
heat generated by the motor also be
included in the calculation. Section
III.B.1 includes a detailed discussion of
this issue and DOE’s proposed modified
version of the airflow calculation
equation. DOE requests comments on
these modifications to the equation
proposed by AHRI to calculate airflow.
DOE recognizes that the use of the
1.08 conversion factor assumes that the
airflow has standard air properties (i.e.
standard air density and specific heat).
DOE anticipates that the properties of
the airflow under test may deviate from
these values at actual test conditions.
Therefore, DOE also requests comment
on whether the conversion factor should
be adjusted by the barometric pressure
at test conditions.
2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated
Heating Airflow-Control Setting To
Calculate Maximum Airflow
DOE proposes to modify the AHRI
recommended method to specify that
maximum airflow be calculated based
on a temperature rise measurement
taken while operating the furnace in the
rated heating airflow-control setting and
firing the burner at the heat input
capacity associated with that airflowcontrol setting. DOE recognizes that,
compared to AHRI’s suggested method,
more complex calculations are required
to determine the airflow in the
maximum airflow-control setting based
on a temperature rise measurement in
the heating airflow-control setting.
Section III.B.1 includes a detailed
discussion of DOE’s reasoning,
methodology, and equations for the
modified approach to calculating
airflow in the maximum airflow control
setting. DOE requests comments on the
proposed modified method for
calculating airflow in the maximum
airflow-control setting. DOE also
requests comment on whether the
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
19624
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
proposed adjustment to this calculation,
which accounts for the elevated
temperature in the ductwork, should be
incorporated to achieve greater accuracy
in determination of the maximum
airflow rate. Specifically, DOE requests
comments on how ESP, furnace fan
electrical input power, and airflow
measurements are impacted by
temperature rise. DOE also seeks
comment on how those relationships
would impact the accuracy of the
calculated value of QMax and, ultimately,
FER.
3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting to
Measure Temperature Rise
DOE recognizes that a more accurate
measurement of temperature rise could
be made at higher throughput
temperatures because the allowable
error in temperature measurements
would represent a lower percentage of
the overall temperature rise. DOE
requests comment on whether the
maximum airflow should be calculated
based on the temperature rise measured
while operating the furnace fan in the
maximum default heat airflow-control
setting and at maximum heat input
capacity to minimize temperature
measurement error. Section III.B.1
includes a detailed discussion of this
issue.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Elevation Impacts
DOE is concerned that at higher
elevations the temperature rise would
be high due to reduced air mass flow,
resulting in higher calculated airflow.
DOE requests comments on the
magnitude of potential elevation
impacts on calculated airflow and FER
values. DOE also requests comments on
whether specifications, such as a
maximum test elevation or elevation
adjustment factors, should be used to
avoid circumvention associated with
conducting this test at high elevation.
5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications
AHRI’s suggested test method
specifies that the reference system ESP
be achieved by ‘‘symmetrically
restricting the outlet of the test duct.’’
(AHRI, No. 26 at p. 19.) The AHRI test
method does not provide details on the
method or equipment to be used to meet
this requirement. DOE is aware that
independent test labs typically apply
cardboard ducting or tape to the corners
of the outlet until the desired ESP is
achieved. DOE requests comments on
whether more specific methods for
restricting the outlet duct should be
included and what these specific duct
restriction requirements should be.
Section III.B.2 includes a detailed
discussion of this issue.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
6. Optional Return Air Duct
According to AHRI’s suggested test
method, use of an return air duct in the
test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at
p. 20.) DOE proposes to also allow for
the optional use of a return air duct;
however, DOE is concerned that ESP
may differ when measured with a return
air duct compared to when measured
without a return air duct. DOE requests
comments on the relative ESP
measurements and FER values that
result when not using an air return duct
compared to when an air return duct is
used, and whether the test procedure
should explicitly require use of a return
air duct. Section III.B.2 includes a
detailed discussion of this issue.
7. ASHRAE 37–2005 External Static
Pressure Measurement Provisions
AHRI’s suggested test method
specifies that ESP measurements be
made as close as possible to the air
supply and return openings of the
furnace and in all cases, between the
furnace openings and any restrictions or
elbows in the test plenums or ducts.
(AHRI, No. 26 at p. 20.) DOE agrees with
these specifications, but proposes to
incorporate by reference the ASHRAE
37 provisions for measuring ESP
(sections 6.4 and 6.5), which are
consistent with AHRI’s suggested
specifications but are more detailed.
DOE anticipates that these more
detailed specifications would minimize
variations in test setups and, in turn,
improve repeatability. DOE requests
comments on its proposed provisions
for measuring ESP, which are adopted
from ASHRAE 37–2005. Section III.B.2
includes details of DOE’s proposal for
measuring external static pressure.
Temperature Measurement Accuracy
Requirement
AHRI’s recommended method adopts
ASHRAE 103–1993 provisions that
specify that temperature measurements
shall have an error no greater than ±2 °F.
DOE proposes to specify that
temperature measurements have an
error no greater than ±0.5 °F to
minimize error in the resulting FER
values. DOE requests comment on
whether ±0.5 °F is reasonably
achievable. Section III.B.3 includes a
more detailed discussion of this issue.
9. Minimum Temperature Rise
AHRI’s method does not include a
minimum temperature rise requirement.
DOE is concerned that the allowable
error in temperature measurements
coupled with a low temperature rise
could result in inaccurate test results.
For this reason, DOE also proposes to
require a minimum temperature rise of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18 °F, as specified in ASHRAE 37–2005.
DOE requests comments on whether a
minimum temperature rise should be
required, and if so, what an appropriate
value for the minimum temperature rise
would be. Section III.B.3 includes a
detailed discussion of this issue.
10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria
AHRI’s recommended method adopts
the stabilization criteria of the DOE test
procedure for residential furnaces. 10
CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix N,
section 7.0 DOE is concerned that the
temperature variations specified in the
residential furnace stabilization criteria
are not stringent enough to maximize
accuracy and repeatability for
evaluating furnace fan performance
according to the proposed test
procedure. In section III.B.3 DOE
proposes modified stabilization criteria
to address this concern.. DOE requests
comments on whether the proposed
stabilization criteria are reasonably
achievable, and whether the
stabilization criteria for the AFUE test
would be sufficient to assure that the
entire furnace has thermally stabilized
to a point such that the measured air
temperature rise would no longer
significantly change.
11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow
Temperature Gradients
AHRI’s approach does not include
provisions to account for potential inlet
or outlet airflow temperature gradients.
DOE is concerned that temperature
gradients are likely to be present, which
would compromise the accuracy and
repeatability of the temperature rise
measurement results. DOE proposes to
specify the use of a mixer, as depicted
in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37–2005,
which references ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 41.1–1986 (RA 2001), to
minimize outlet flow temperature
gradients if the temperature difference
between any two thermocouples of the
outlet air temperature grid is greater
than 1.5 °F. DOE requests comments on
the proposed requirements for use of an
air mixer. DOE also requests comment
on whether the static pressure drop of
adding a mixer would prevent the test
setup from achieving the ESP levels
specified in the DOE test procedure for
furnaces or the lower ESP levels
specified in this notice for measuring
fan performance in the lowest rated
airflow setting. DOE also seeks comment
on whether additional thermocouples
are needed for the inlet. Section III.B.3
includes a detailed discussion of this
issue.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Confidential business information,
Energy conservation, Household
appliances, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
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.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts
429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D,
of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Add § 429.58 to read as follows:
Furnace fans.
(a) Sampling plan for selection of
units for testing. (1) The requirements of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
4. Section 430.3 is amended by:
a. Removing, in paragraph (f)(3)
‘‘appendix M to subpart B’’ and adding
in its place ‘‘appendix M and appendix
AA to subpart B’’;
■ b. Removing, in paragraph (f)(4),
‘‘Reaffirmed 2001’’ and adding in its
place ‘‘Reaffirmed 2006’’; and removing
‘‘appendix E and appendix M to subpart
B’’ and adding in its place ‘‘appendices
E, M, and AA to subpart B’’;
■ c. Redesignating paragraph (f)(10) as
(f)(11); and
■ d. Adding paragraph (f)(10);
The addition reads as follows:
■
■
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25,
2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy .
§ 429.58
¯
And X is the sample mean; s is the
sample standard deviation; n is the
number of samples; and t0.90 is the t
statistic for a 90% one-tailed confidence
interval with n-1 degrees of freedom
(from Appendix A of this subpart).
(b) Certification reports. [Reserved]
PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
■
¯
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:
§ 430.3 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103–
2007, (‘‘ASHRAE 103–2007’’), Methods
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central
Furnaces and Boilers, except for
sections 7.2.2.5, 8.6.1.1, 9.1.2.2, 9.5.1.1,
9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, 9.7.1,
11.2.12, 11.3.12, 11.4.12, 11.5.12 and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
appendices B and C, ASHRAE approved
June 27, 2007, ANSI approved March
25, 2008, IBR approved for appendix
AA to subpart B.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Section 430.23 is amended by
adding paragraph (cc) to read as follows:
§ 430.23 Test procedures for the
measurement of energy and water
consumption.
*
*
*
*
*
(cc) Furnace Fans. The energy
consumption of a single unit of furnace
fan basic model expressed in watts per
1000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) to the
nearest integer shall be calculated in
accordance with appendix AA of this
subpart.
■ 6. Appendix AA to subpart B of part
430 is added to read as follows:
Appendix AA to Subpart B of Part
430—Uniform Test Method for
Measuring the Energy Consumption of
Furnace Fans
Note: Any representation made after
September 30, 2013 for energy consumption
of furnace fans must be based upon results
generated under this test procedure. Upon
the compliance date(s) of any energy
conservation standard(s) for furnace fans, use
of the applicable provisions of this test
procedure to demonstrate compliance with
the energy conservation standard will also be
required.
1. Scope. This appendix covers the test
requirements used to measure the energy
consumption of a furnace fan.
2. Definitions. Definitions include the
definitions as specified in section 3 of
ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3) and the following
additional definitions, some of which
supersede definitions found in ASHRAE
103–2007:
2.1. Active mode means the condition in
which the product in which the furnace fan
is integrated is connected to a power source
and circulating air through ductwork.
2.2. Airflow-control settings are
programmed or wired control system
configurations that control a fan to achieve
discrete, differing ranges of airflow—often
designated for performing a specific function
(e.g., cooling, heating, or constant
circulation)—without manual adjustment
other than interaction with a user-operable
control such as a thermostat that meets the
manufacturer specifications for installed-use.
For the purposes of this appendix,
manufacturer specifications for installed-use
shall be found in the product literature
shipped with the unit.
2.3. ASHRAE 103–2007 means ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 103–2007, published in
2007 by ASHRAE, approved by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) on
March 25, 2008, and entitled ‘‘Method of
Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces
and Boilers’’. Only those sections of ASHRAE
103–2007 (incorporated by reference; see
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.025</GPH>
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s notice of
proposed rulemaking.
§ 429.11 are applicable to furnace fans;
and
(2) For each basic model of heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning
(HVAC) product using a furnace fan, a
sample of sufficient size shall be
randomly selected and tested to ensure
that any represented value of fan energy
rating (FER), rounded to the nearest
integer, shall be greater than or equal to
the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
EP02AP13.024</GPH>
12. Sampling Plan Criteria
DOE agrees with interested parties
that the furnace fan electrical input
power measurements and external static
pressure measurements that would be
required by the test procedure proposed
herein are different and inherently more
variable than the measurements
required for AFUE. DOE proposes to
adopt a sampling plan that requires any
represented value of FER to be greater
or equal to the mean of the sample or
the upper 90 percent (one-tailed)
confidence limit divided by 1.05, as
specified in the sampling plan for CAC/
HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE
requests comments that include detailed
data regarding test result variance that it
can use to assess the appropriateness of
the sampling plan proposed herein.
19625
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19626
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
§ 430.3) specifically referenced in this test
procedure are part of this test procedure. In
cases where there is a conflict, the language
of the test procedure in this appendix takes
precedence over ASHRAE 103–2007.
2.4. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1–1986
(RA 2006) means the test standard published
in 1986, approved by ANSI on February 18,
1987, reaffirmed in 2006, and entitled
‘‘Standard Method for Temperature
Measurement’’.
2.5. ASHRAE Standard 37–2005 means the
test standard published in 2005 by ASHRAE
entitled ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment’’.
2.6. Default airflow-control settings are the
airflow-control settings specified for
installed-use by the manufacturer. For the
purposes of this appendix, manufacturer
specifications for installed-use are those
specifications provided for typical consumer
installations in the product literature shipped
with the product in which the furnace fan is
installed. In instances where a manufacturer
specifies multiple airflow-control settings for
a given function to account for varying
installation scenarios, the highest airflowcontrol setting specified for the given
function shall be used for the procedures
specified in this appendix.
2.7. External static pressure (ESP) means
the difference between static pressures
measured in the outlet duct and return air
opening (or return air duct when used for
testing) of the product in which the furnace
fan is integrated.
2.8. Furnace fan is an electrically-powered
device used in a consumer product for the
purpose of circulating air through ductwork.
2.9. Modular blower means a product
which only uses single-phase electric
current, and which:
(a) Is designed to be the principal air
circulation source for the living space of a
residence;
(b) Is not contained within the same
cabinet as a furnace or central air
conditioner; and
(c) Is designed to be paired with HVAC
products that have a heat input rate of less
than 225,000 Btu per hour or cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu per hour.
2.10. Off mode means the condition in
which the product in which the furnace fan
is integrated is either not connected to the
power source or connected to the power
source but not energized.
2.11. Seasonal off switch means a switch
on the product in which the furnace fan is
integrated that, when activated, results in a
measurable change in energy consumption
between the standby and off modes.
2.12. Standby mode means the condition in
which the product in which the furnace fan
is integrated is connected to the power
source and the furnace fan is not circulating
air.
2.13. Thermal stack damper means a type
of stack damper that opens only during the
direct conversion of thermal energy of the
stack gases.
3. Classifications. Classifications are as
specified in section 4 of ASHRAE 103–2007
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3).
4. Requirements. Requirements are as
specified in section 5 of ASHRAE 103–2007
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). In
addition, Fan Energy Rating (FER) of furnace
fans shall be determined using test data and
estimated national average operating hours
pursuant to section 10.10 of this appendix.
5. Instruments. Instruments must be as
specified in section 6, except section 6.2, of
ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3); and as specified in
section 5.1 of this appendix.
5.1. Temperature. Temperature measuring
instruments shall meet the provisions
specified in section 5.1 of ASHRAE 37–2005
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and
shall be accurate to within 0.5 degree
Fahrenheit.
5.1.1. Outlet Air Temperature
Thermocouple Grid. Outlet air temperature
shall be measured as described in section
8.2.1.5.5 of ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated
by reference, see § 430.3) and illustrated in
Figure 2 of ASHRAE 103–2007. If the
temperature range of the nine individual
measurements exceeds 1.5 °F, an air mixer as
described in section 6 of ASHRAE 41.1–1986
(RA 2006) (incorporated by reference, see
§ 430.3) shall be used to reduce the
temperature range to within 1.5 °F.
Thermocouples shall be placed downstream
of pressure taps used for external static
pressure measurement.
6. Apparatus. The apparatus used in
conjunction with the furnace during the
testing shall be as specified in section 7 of
ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3) except for section 7.1,
the second paragraph of section 7.2.2.2,
section 7.2.2.5, and section 7.7, and as
specified in sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and
6.6 of this appendix.
6.1. General. The product in which the
furnace fan is integrated shall be installed in
the test room in accordance with the product
manufacturer’s written instructions that are
shipped with the product unless required
otherwise by a specific provision of this
appendix. The apparatus described in this
section is used in conjunction with the
product in which the furnace fan is
integrated. Each piece of the apparatus shall
conform to material and construction
specifications and the reference standard
cited. Test rooms containing equipment shall
have suitable facilities for providing the
utilities necessary for performance of the test
and be able to maintain conditions within the
limits specified.
6.2. Downflow furnaces. Install the internal
section of vent pipe the same size as the flue
collar for connecting the flue collar to the top
of the unit, if not supplied by the
manufacturer. Do not insulate the internal
vent pipe during the jacket loss test (if
conducted) described in section 8.6 of
ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3) or the steady-state test
described in section 9.1 of ASHRAE 103–
2007. Do not insulate the internal vent pipe
before the cool-down and heat-up tests
described in sections 9.5 and 9.6,
respectively, of ASHRAE 103–2007. If the
vent pipe is surrounded by a metal jacket, do
not insulate the metal jacket. Install a 5-ft test
stack of the same cross sectional area or
perimeter as the vent pipe above the top of
the furnace. Tape or seal around the junction
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
connecting the vent pipe and the 5-ft test
stack. Insulate the 5-ft test stack with
insulation having a minimum R-value of 7
and an outer layer of aluminum foil. (See
Figure 3–E of ASHRAE 103–2007.)
6.3. Modular Blowers. A modular blower
shall be equipped with the electric heat
resistance kit that is likely to have the largest
volume of retail sales with that particular
basic model of modular blower.
6.4. Ducts and Plenums. An apparatus for
measuring external static pressure as
specified in sections 6.4 and 6.5 of ASHRAE
37–2005 (incorporated by reference, see
§ 430.3) shall be integrated in the plenum
and test duct. External static pressure
measuring instruments shall be placed
between the furnace openings and any
restrictions or elbows in the test plenums or
ducts. For tests conducted using a return air
duct, the external static pressure shall be
directly measured as a differential pressure
as depicted in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37–2005
rather than determined by separately
measuring inlet and outlet static pressure and
subtracting the results. For tests conducted
without a return air duct, the external static
pressure shall be directly measured as the
differential pressure between the duct static
pressure and the ambient static pressure as
depicted in Figure 7a of ASHRAE 37–2005.
6.5. Air Filters. Air filters shall be removed.
6.6. Electrical Measurement. Only
electrical input power to the furnace fan shall
be measured for the purposes of this
appendix. Electrical input power to all other
electricity-consuming components of the
product in which the furnace fan is
integrated shall not be included in the
electrical input power measurements used in
the FER calculation. If the procedures of this
appendix are being conducted at the same
time as another test that requires metering of
components other than the furnace fan, the
electrical input power to the furnace fan shall
be sub-metered.
7. Test Conditions. The testing conditions
shall be as specified in section 8, except for
section 8.6.1.1, of ASHRAE 103–2007
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3); and
as specified in section 7.1 of this appendix.
7.1. Measurement of Jacket Surface
Temperature. The jacket of the furnace or
boiler shall be subdivided into 6-inch squares
when practical, and otherwise into 36square-inch regions comprising 4 in. × 9 in.
or 3 in. × 12 in. sections, and the surface
temperature at the center of each square or
section shall be determined with a surface
thermocouple. The 36-square-inch areas shall
be recorded in groups where the temperature
differential of the 36-square-inch area is less
than 10 °F for temperature up to 100 °F above
room temperature and less than 20 °F for
temperature more than 100 °F above room
temperature. For forced air central furnaces,
the circulating air blower compartment is
considered as part of the duct system and no
surface temperature measurement of the
blower compartment needs to be recorded for
the purpose of this test. For downflow
furnaces, measure all cabinet surface
temperatures of the heat exchanger and
combustion section, including the bottom
around the outlet duct, and the burner door,
using the 36 square-inch thermocouple grid.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The cabinet surface temperatures around the
blower section do not need to be measured
(see figure 3–E of ASHRAE 103–2007.)
8. Test Procedure. Testing and
measurements shall be as specified in section
9 of ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3) except for sections
9.1.2.1, 9.3, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2,
9.5.2.1, and section 9.7.1; and as specified in
sections 8.1 through 8.6 of this appendix.
8.1. Direct Measurement of Off-Cycle
Losses Testing Method. [Reserved]
8.2. Measurement of Electrical Standby
and Off Mode Power. [Reserved]
8.3. Steady-State Conditions for Gas and
Oil Furnaces. Steady-state conditions are
indicated by a temperature variation in three
successive readings, taken 15 minutes apart,
of not more than
(a) 1.5 °F in the stack gas temperature for
furnaces equipped with draft diverters;
(b) 2.5 °F in the stack gas temperature for
furnaces equipped with either draft hoods,
direct exhaust, or direct vent systems; and
(c) 0.5 °F in the flue gas temperature for
condensing furnaces.
8.4. Steady-state Conditions for Electric
Furnaces and Modular Blowers. Steady state
conditions are indicated by a temperature
variation of not more than 1 °F in the outlet
air temperature in four successive
temperature readings taken 15 minutes apart.
8.5. Steady-State Conditions for Cold Flow
Tests. For tests during which the burner or
electric heating elements are turned off (i.e.,
cold flow tests), steady-state conditions are
indicated by a temperature variation of not
more than 1 °F in the outlet air temperature
in four successive temperature readings taken
15 minutes apart.
8.6. Fan Energy Rating (FER) Test.
8.6.1. Initial FER test conditions and
maximum airflow-control setting
measurements. The main burner or electric
heating elements shall be turned off. The
furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to the
maximum airflow-control setting. The
external static pressure shall be adjusted to
the value shown in Table VI.1 by
symmetrically restricting the outlet of the test
duct. Maintain these settings until steadystate conditions are attained as specified in
section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix.
Measure and record furnace fan electrical
input power (EMax) and external static
pressure (ESPMax).
TABLE VI.1—REQUIRED MINIMUM EXTERNAL STATIC PRESSURE IN THE
MAXIMUM AIRFLOW-CONTROL SETTING BY INSTALLATION TYPE
ESP
(in.w.c.)
Installation type
Units with an internal, factoryinstalled evaporator coil ........
Units designed to be paired
with an evaporator coil, but
without one installed .............
Manufactured home ..................
0.50
0.65
0.30
Once the specified ESP has been achieved,
the same outlet duct restrictions shall be
used for the remainder of the furnace fan test.
8.6.2. Constant circulation airflow-control
setting measurements. The furnace fan
controls shall be adjusted to the default
constant circulation airflow-control setting. If
the manufacturer does not specify a constant
circulation airflow-control setting, the lowest
airflow-control setting shall be used.
Maintain these settings until steady-state
conditions are attained as specified in section
8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix. Measure
and record furnace fan electrical input power
(ECirc) and external static pressure (ESPCirc).
8.6.3. Heating airflow-control setting
measurements. For single-stage gas and oil
furnaces, the burner shall be fired at the
maximum heat input rate. Burner
adjustments shall be made as specified by
section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103–2007
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3). For
single-stage electric furnaces, the electric
heating elements shall be energized at the
maximum heat input rate. For multi-stage
and modulating furnaces the reduced heat
input rate settings shall be used. After the
burner is activated and adjusted or the
electric heating elements are energized, the
furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to
operate the fan in the default heat airflowcontrol setting. Maintain these settings until
steady-state conditions are attained as
specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this
appendix. Measure and record furnace fan
electrical input power (EHeat), external static
pressure (ESPHeat), flue or stack carbon
dioxide concentration (XCO2,a), flue or stack
19627
gas temperature (Ta,SS,X), and temperature
rise (DTHeat).
9. Nomenclature. Nomenclature shall
include the nomenclature specified in
section 10 of ASHRAE 103–2007
(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) and
the following additional variables:
CH = annual furnace fan cooling hours
CCH = annual furnace fan constantcirculation hours
ECirc = furnace fan electrical consumption at
the default constant-circulation airflowcontrol setting operating point (or
minimum airflow-control setting operating
point if a default constant-circulation
airflow-control setting is not specified), in
watts
EHeat = furnace fan electrical consumption in
the default heat airflow-control setting for
single-stage heating products or the default
low-heat setting for multi-stage heating
products, in watts
EMax = furnace fan electrical consumption in
the maximum airflow-control setting, in
watts
ESPi = external static pressure, in inches
water column, at time of the electrical
power measurement in airflow-control
setting i, where i can be ‘‘Circ’’ to represent
constant-circulation (or minimum airflow)
mode, ‘‘Heat’’ to represent heating mode,
or ‘‘Max’’ to represent cooling (or
maximum airflow) mode.
FER= fan energy rating, in watts/1000 cfm
HH = annual furnace fan heating operating
hours
HCR = heating capacity ratio (reduced heat
input capacity divided by maximum
input heat capacity)
kref = physical descriptor characterizing the
reference system
DTi = air throughput temperature rise in
setting i, in °F
QMax = airflow at maximum airflow-control
setting at, in cubic feet per minute (CFM)
10. Calculation of derived results from test
measurements for a single unit. Calculations
shall be as specified in section 11 of
ASHRAE 103–2007 (incorporated by
reference, see § 430.3), except for appendices
B and C; and as specified in sections 10.1
through 10.10 and Figure 1 of this appendix.
10.1. Fan Energy Rating (FER)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.026</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Where:
19628
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules
The estimated national average operating
hours presented in Table VI.2 shall be used
to calculate FER.
TABLE VI.2—ESTIMATED NATIONAL AVERAGE OPERATING HOUR VALUES FOR CALCULATING FER
Operating mode
Variable
Heating .................................................................................................................................................
Cooling ..................................................................................................................................................
Constant Circulation .............................................................................................................................
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0186; Directorate
Identifier 2013–NE–11–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; General
Electric Company Turbofan Engines
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
We propose to adopt a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
General Electric Company (GE) GE90–
76B, –85B, –90B, –94B, –110B1, and
–115B turbofan engines. This proposed
AD was prompted by multiple reports of
failure of certain stage 1 high-pressure
turbine (HPT) stator shrouds due to
accelerated corrosion and oxidation.
This proposed AD would require initial
and repetitive on-wing borescope
inspections (BSIs) for corrosion and
oxidation, of the affected stage 1 HPT
stator shrouds, and removal from
service before further flight, if the parts
fail the inspection. We are proposing
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:24 Apr 01, 2013
Jkt 229001
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
830
640
400
830/HCR
640
400
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Office
(phone: 800–647–5527) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Yang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone: 781–238–7747; fax: 781–
238–7199; email: jason.yang@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to send any written
relevant data, views, or arguments about
this proposal. Send your comments to
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2013–0186; Directorate Identifier 2013–
NE–11–AD’’ at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this
proposed AD because of those
comments.
We will post all comments we
receive, without change, to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact we receive
about this proposed AD.
E:\FR\FM\02APP1.SGM
02APP1
EP02AP13.028</GPH>
[FR Doc. 2013–07327 Filed 4–1–13; 8:45 am]
this AD to prevent failure of the stage
1 HPT stator shrouds, resulting in inflight shutdown of one or more engines,
loss of thrust control, and damage to the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by June 3, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
For service information identified in
this proposed AD, contact General
Electric Company, One Neumann Way,
MD Y–75, Cincinnati, OH; phone: 513–
552–2913; email: geae.aoc@ge.com; and
Web site: www.GE.com. You may view
the referenced service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 781–238–7125.
HH
CH
CCH
Multi-stage
or
modulating
(hours)
EP02AP13.027</GPH>
Where:
Single-stage
(hours)
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 2, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19606-19628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07327]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19606]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 430
[Docket No. EERE-2010-BT-TP-0010]
RIN 1904-AC21
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Test
Procedures for Residential Furnace Fans
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to establish test
procedures for electrically-powered devices used in residential
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) products to circulate
air through ductwork, hereafter referred to as ``furnace fans.'' DOE
proposes a test procedure that would be applicable to furnace fans that
are used in weatherized and non-weatherized gas, oil and electric
furnaces and modular blowers, even though DOE interprets its authority
as encompassing more than just circulation fans used in furnaces. This
notice proposes to establish a test method for measuring the electrical
consumption of the furnace fans used in these products. Concurrently,
DOE is undertaking an energy conservation standards rulemaking to
address the electrical energy used by these products for circulating
air. Once these energy conservation standards are promulgated, the
adopted test procedures would be used to determine compliance with the
standards. DOE is also requesting written comments on issues presented
in this test procedure rulemaking. DOE does not plan to hold a public
meeting to discuss the modified proposals of this supplemental notice.
DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information
regarding this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) no
later than May 2, 2013. For details, see section V, ``Public
Participation,'' of this SNOPR.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR on Test
Procedures for Residential Furnace Fans, and provide docket number
EERE-2010-BT-TP-0010 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) number
1904-AC21. Comments may be submitted using any of the following
methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: FurnFans-2010-TP-0010@ee.doe.gov. Include docket number
EERE-2010-BT-TP-0010 and RIN 1904-AC21 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. See section V,
``Public Participation,'' for detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process.
Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov,
including Federal Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and
transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/42. This Web page contains a link to the docket for this
notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web
page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the docket. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The residential furnace fans
rulemaking electronic mailbox, Email: Residential_furnace_fans@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Ari Altman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6307. Email: Ari.Altman@hq.doe.gov.
For information on how to submit or review public comments, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies
Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. SNOPR Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
B. AHRI Test Method
1. Calculating Maximum Airflow
2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure Measurements
3. Temperature Rise Measurements
C. Definitions
D. Sampling Plans
E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
F. Reference System Product Types
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
[[Page 19607]]
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
1. Airflow Equation
2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated Heating Airflow-Control
Setting To Calculate Maximum Airflow
3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting To Measure Temperature Rise
4. Elevation Impacts
5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications
6. Optional Return Air Duct
7. ASHRAE 37-2005 External Static Pressure Measurement
Provisions
8. Temperature Measurement Accuracy Requirement
9. Minimum Temperature Rise
10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria
11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature Gradients
12. Sampling Plan Criteria
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III, Part B \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309, as
codified) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency and established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer
Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major
household appliances.\2\ These covered appliances include products that
use electricity for the purposes of circulating air through ductwork,
hereinafter referred to as ``furnace fans,'' the subject of today's
notice.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part B was redesignated Part A.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this rulemaking refer to the
statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act
of 2007, Public Law 110-140.
\3\ DOE interprets its authority as encompassing more than just
circulation fans used in residential furnaces. At the present time,
however, DOE is only proposing a test procedure that would cover
those fans that are used in weatherized and non-weatherized gas,
oil, and electric furnaces, and modular blowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Act, this energy conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) Federal
energy conservation standards; and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. The testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for certifying
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA and for making
representations about the efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C.
6293(c); 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Any representation made after September 30,
2013 for energy consumption of residential furnace fans must be based
upon results generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance
date(s) of any energy conservation standard(s) for residential furnace
fans, use of the applicable provisions of this test procedure to
demonstrate compliance with the energy conservation standard will also
be required. Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures in any
enforcement action to determine whether covered products comply with
these energy conservation standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered products. Under EPCA, ``[a]ny test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use * * * and shall not be unduly
burdensome to conduct.'' (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) In addition, if DOE
determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, it must
publish proposed test procedures and offer the public an opportunity to
present oral and written comments on them. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(2)) In
any rulemaking to amend a test procedure, DOE must determine to what
extent, if any, the proposed test procedure would alter the measured
energy efficiency of a covered product as determined under the existing
test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(1)) If DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would alter the measured efficiency of a covered
product, DOE must amend the applicable energy conservation standard
accordingly. (42 U.S.C. 6293(e)(2))
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Furnace Fans
Pursuant to EPCA under 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(D), DOE is currently
conducting a rulemaking to consider new energy conservation standards
for furnace fans. EPCA directs DOE to establish test procedures in
conjunction with new energy conservation standards, including furnace
fans. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) DOE does not currently have a test
procedure for furnace fans. Hence, to fulfill the statutory
requirements, DOE initiated a test procedure rulemaking for furnace
fans simultaneously to the energy conservation standards rulemaking for
furnace fans. DOE intends for the test procedure to include an energy
consumption metric and the methods necessary to measure the energy
performance of the covered products. The proposed energy consumption
metric does not account for the electrical energy consumption in
standby mode and off mode because consumption in those modes is already
accounted for in the DOE rulemakings for furnaces and central air
conditioners (CAC) and heat pumps. 77 FR 76831, December 31, 2012; 76
FR 65616 (Oct. 24, 2011). Manufacturers would be required to use the
proposed energy consumption metric, sampling plans, and testing methods
developed during this rulemaking to verify compliance with the new
energy conservation standards when they take effect and for making
representations about the energy consumption of furnace fans.
On June 3, 2010, DOE published a Notice of Public Meeting and
Availability of the Framework Document (the June 2010 Framework
Document) to initiate the energy conservation standard rulemaking for
furnace fans. 75 FR 31323. In the June 2010 Framework Document, DOE
requested feedback from interested parties on many issues related to
test methods for evaluating the electrical energy consumption of
furnace fans. DOE held the framework public meeting on June 18, 2010.
DOE originally scheduled the framework comment period to close on July
6, 2010. However, due to the large number and broad scope of questions
and issues raised regarding the June 2010 Framework Document in writing
and during the public meeting, DOE published a notice in the Federal
Register reopening the comment period from July 15, 2010, until July
27, 2010, to allow additional time for interested parties to submit
comments. 75 FR 41102 (July 15, 2010).
On May 15, 2012, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking in
the Federal Register to initiate the test procedure rulemaking for
furnace fans. 77 FR 28674. In the NOPR, DOE proposed a rating metric,
fan efficiency rating (FER) and proposed methods to measure the
performance of covered products based on FER. DOE held a public meeting
on the test procedure NOPR on June 15, 2012. The test procedure NOPR
comment period closed on September 10, 2012.
In response to the NOPR, many interested parties commented that the
proposed test procedure was unduly burdensome. The Air-Conditioning,
Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), with support from Goodman
Global, Inc. (``Goodman''), Ingersoll Rand, Lennox International, Inc.
(``Lennox''), and Morrison Products, Inc. (``Morrison''), proposed an
alternative
[[Page 19608]]
test method that it argues would result in accurate and repeatable FER
values that are comparable to the FER values resulting from the test
procedure proposed in the NOPR, but are obtained at a significantly
reduced test burden. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4;
Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) A detailed
discussion of AHRI's proposed alternative method and interested
parties' comments regarding the burden of the test procedure proposed
in the NOPR is provided in section III.B of this notice.
DOE agrees that the key concept embodied in the alternative method
suggested by AHRI and manufacturers (using the AFUE test set up and
temperature rise to determine airflow) may provide accurate and
repeatable FER values at a significantly reduced burden to
manufacturers. In this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNOPR), DOE proposes to adopt a modified version of the test method
presented by AHRI as the furnace fan test procedure. DOE also explains
the changes reflected in the test procedure proposed herein compared to
the test procedure proposed in the NOPR. This notice also provides
interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the revised
proposed test method.
In this SNOPR, DOE addresses only the changes to the test procedure
it proposed in the NOPR and those comments received on the NOPR that
are relevant to the proposed changes. All other comments received on
the test procedure NOPR will be addressed in the test procedure final
rule.
II. Summary of the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to establish these test
procedures in order to allow for the development of energy conservation
standards to address the electrical consumption of the products covered
under this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)) The proposed test
procedure would be applicable to electrically-powered devices used in
central HVAC systems for the purposes of circulating air through
ductwork (referred to collectively as furnace fans in this rulemaking).
Furnace fans covered in the scope of the proposed test procedure
include circulation fans used in weatherized and non-weatherized gas
furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, and modular blowers. DOE's
proposed definition of modular blowers is provided in section III.C.
The proposed test procedure would not be applicable to any non-ducted
products, such as whole-house ventilation systems without ductwork,
central air-conditioning (CAC) condensing unit fans, room fans, and
furnace draft inducer fans.
DOE proposes to adopt a modified version of the alternative test
method recommended by AHRI and other furnace fan manufacturers to rate
the electrical consumption of furnace fans. The AHRI-proposed method
provides a framework for accurate and repeatable determinations of FER
that is comparable to the test method previously proposed by DOE, but
at a significantly reduced test burden. In general, the AHRI proposal
reduces the test burden because it: (1) Does not require airflow to be
measured directly; (2) avoids the need to make multiple determinations
in each airflow-control setting because outlet restrictions to achieve
the specified reference system external static pressure (ESP) would be
set in the maximum airflow-control setting and maintained for
measurements in subsequent airflow-control settings; and (3) can be
conducted using the test set up currently required to rate furnace AFUE
for compliance with furnace standards.
DOE proposes to align the proposed furnace fan test procedure with
the DOE test procedure for furnaces by incorporating by reference
specific provisions from an industry standard incorporated by reference
in its test procedure for furnaces. DOE's test procedure for furnaces
is codified in appendix N of subpart B of part 430 of the code of
federal regulations (CFR). The DOE furnace test procedure incorporates
by reference American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) 103-1993, Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization
Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers (ASHRAE 103).
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the definitions, test setup
and equipment, and procedures for measuring steady state combustion
efficiency provisions of the 2007 version of ASHRAE 103. In addition to
these provisions, DOE proposes additional provisions for apparatuses
and procedures for measuring throughput temperature, external static
pressure, and furnace fan electrical input power. DOE also proposes
calculations to derive FER based on the results of testing for each
basic model.
DOE proposes to use the same definition for the fan efficiency
rating (FER) metric as proposed in the NOPR, but to modify the title
and calculation. In the NOPR, DOE proposed to define FER as the
estimated annual electrical energy consumption of the furnace fan
normalized by: (a) The estimated total number of annual fan operating
hours (1,870); and (b) the airflow in the maximum airflow-control
setting. DOE is aware that referring to the FER rating metric as the
``fan efficiency rating,'' as was done in the NOPR, is a misnomer
because it is not a function of the output energy of the furnace fan,
which is typical of an efficiency metric. FER is a function of fan
energy consumption and as a result, DOE believes it is more
appropriately categorized as an energy consumption metric. Thus DOE
proposes to refer to FER as the ``fan energy rating.'' The estimated
annual electrical energy consumption, as proposed, is a weighted
average of the furnace fan electrical input power (in Watts) measured
separately for multiple airflow-control settings at different external
static pressures (ESPs). These ESPs are determined by a reference
system that represents national average ductwork system
characteristics. Table II.1 includes the proposed reference system ESP
values by installation type. The reference system ESP values proposed
in the NOPR included a value for ``heating-only'' installation types.
Interested parties recommended that DOE eliminate this installation
type because they are unaware of products that could be categorized as
such. DOE agrees with interested parties and proposes to eliminate the
heating-only designation for this SNOPR. Section III.F provides a
detailed discussion of this issue.
Table II.1--Proposed Reference System ESP Values by Furnace Fan
Installation Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Installation type average ESP
(in. w.c.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units with an internal evaporator coil.................. 0.50
Units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil..... 0.65
Units installed in a Manufactured homes \4\............. 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rated airflow-control settings correspond to
operation in cooling mode (which DOE finds is predominantly associated
with the maximum airflow-control setting), heating mode, and constant-
circulation mode. Table II.2 illustrates the airflow-
[[Page 19609]]
control settings that would be rated for various product types. The
NOPR included proposed rated airflow control settings for heating-only
installations. As discussed above, DOE proposes to eliminate the
heating-only designation for the reasons outlined in section III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Manufactured home external static pressure is much smaller
because there is no return air ductwork in manufactured homes. Also,
the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
requirements for manufactured homes stipulate that the ductwork for
cooling should be set at 0.3 in. w.c.
Table II.2--Proposed Rated Airflow-Control Settings by Product Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated airflow-control Rated airflow-control Rated airflow-control
Product type setting 1 setting 2 setting 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-stage Heating................. Default constant- Default heat........... Absolute maximum.
circulation.
Multi-stage or Modulating Heating.... Default constant- Default low heat....... Absolute maximum.
circulation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table II.2., for products with single-stage heating,
the three proposed rating airflow-control settings are the default
constant-circulation setting, the default heating setting, and the
absolute maximum setting. For products with multi-stage heating or
modulating heating, the proposed rating airflow-control settings are
the default constant-circulation setting, the default low heating
setting, and the absolute maximum setting. The absolute lowest default
airflow-control setting is used to represent constant circulation if a
default constant-circulation setting is not specified. DOE's proposes
to define ``default airflow-control settings'' as the airflow-control
settings specified for installed use by the manufacturer in the product
literature shipped with the product in which the furnace fan is
integrated. Manufacturers typically provide detailed instructions for
setting the default heating airflow control-setting to ensure that the
product in which the furnace fan is integrated operates safely.
Manufacturer installation guides also provide detailed instructions
regarding compatible thermostats and how to wire them to achieve the
specified default settings.
DOE proposes to weight the Watt measurements using designated
annual operating hours for each function (i.e., cooling, heating, and
constant circulation) that are intended to represent national average
operation. Table II.3 shows the proposed estimated national average
operating hours for each function to be used to calculate FER, which
are the same as those proposed in the NOPR.
Table II.3--Estimated National Average Operating Hour Values for Calculating FER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-stage or
Operating mode Variable Single-stage modulating
(hours) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating....................................... HH.............................. 830 830/HCR
Cooling....................................... CH.............................. 640 640
Constant Circulation.......................... CCH............................. 400 400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specified operating hours for the heating mode for multi-stage
heating or modulating heating products are divided by the heat capacity
ratio (HCR) to account for variation in time spent in this mode
associated with turndown of heating output. The HCR is the ratio of the
reduced heat output capacity to maximum heat output capacity. In the
NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate HCR to adjust the heating operating
hours in both the numerator (i.e. estimated annual energy consumption)
and denominator (i.e. normalization factor of total operating hours
times airflow in the maximum airflow-control setting). 77 FR at 28701
(May 15, 2012). In this SNOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate HCR in the
numerator, and eliminate it from the denominator in the revised
proposed FER equation. DOE finds that this modification results in FER
values that more accurately reflect the relative efficiency of multi-
stage and modulating units compared to single-stage units. The revised
proposed FER equation is:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.018
III. SNOPR Discussion
A. Scope of Coverage
EPCA grants DOE authority to ``consider and prescribe energy
conservation standards or energy use standards for electricity used for
purposes of circulating air through ductwork.'' (42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D)) In the June 2010 Framework Document, DOE tentatively
interpreted this EPCA language to allow DOE to cover any electrically-
powered device used in a central HVAC system for the purpose of
circulating air through ductwork. DOE sought comment on including the
air circulation fans used in gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric
furnaces, CAC air handlers, and modular blowers in the scope of
coverage. DOE also sought comment on excluding draft inducer fans,
exhaust fans, heat recovery ventilators (HRV), and energy recovery
ventilators (ERV) from the scope of coverage. DOE also requested
comment on whether other products, such as small-duct, high-velocity
(SDHV) and through-the-wall systems should be included in the scope of
coverage of this rulemaking.
In the test procedure NOPR, DOE proposed a scope of applicability
for the test procedure that was sufficiently broad to cover the
products under consideration for the scope of coverage for the energy
conservation standards. The NOPR test procedure's proposed scope of
applicability included 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. These
heating and cooling capacity limits are identical to those in the DOE
definitions for residential ``furnace'' and ``central air conditioner''
(10 CFR
[[Page 19610]]
430.2), and the airflow typically required to provide these levels of
heating and cooling. DOE proposed to exclude from the scope of
applicability of the test procedure any non-ducted products such as
whole-house ventilation systems without ductwork, CAC condensing unit
fans, room fans, and furnace draft inducer fans because these products
do not circulate air through ductwork.
In their comments on the test procedure NOPR, many interested
parties commented that the scope of coverage should be limited to
circulation fans used in residential furnaces. AHRI stated its view
that DOE had misinterpreted the relevant provision of EPCA. According
to AHRI, the heading of 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) entitled, ``standards for
furnaces and boilers'' and subsections 1 through 4 under that section
apply only to residential furnaces and boilers, as defined by EPCA. 10
CFR 430.2 AHRI suggested that this clear, consistent format strongly
indicates that the scope of this requirement includes only the motor
and blower combinations provided in residential warm air furnaces. AHRI
added that there is nothing within section 42 U.S.C. 6295(f) that
suggests that the provisions of that section apply to any other
products that may be used to heat a residence. AHRI contended that if
the intent of this change had been to include circulation fans used in
residential air conditioners and heat pumps, then Congress would have
added a corresponding paragraph to 42 U S C. 6295(d)--the section
covering central air conditioners and heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 16 at pp.
1-2.) First Company (``First Co.''), Morrison, and Lennox echoed AHRI's
arguments. (First Co., No. 9 at p. 1; Morrison, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 26; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 2.)
First Co. added that, although subsection (f)(4)(D) refers in more
general terms to ``standards for electricity used for purposes of
circulating air through ductwork,'' it is a well-established rule of
statutory construction that, ``[w]here general words follow specific
words in a statutory enumeration, the general words are construed to
embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by
the preceding specific words.'' Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532
U.S. 105, 114-15, 121 S.Ct. 1302, 1308-09 (2001) (applying the
statutory canon of ejusdem generis); Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
Inst. v. Energy Res. Conservation and Dev. Comm'n, 410 F.3d 492,501
(9th Cir. 2005) (applying same statutory canon to interpretation of
EPCA). According to First Co., the general language of subsection
(f)(4)(D) is preceded in subsections (A), (B), and (C) by specific and
repeated references to standards for furnaces. First Co. argues that
applying the rules of statutory construction, the provisions of
subsection (f)(4)(D) must be interpreted to apply to furnaces, and not
to a broader category of products. (First Co., No. 10 at p. 1) DOE
disagrees with this reading of the cases cited above, as the Supreme
Court was in fact considering a ``residual phrase'' within the same
sentence, finding it to be controlled by the specificity of the words
that preceded it. With regard to the case of separate statutory
provisions, the Supreme Court's opinion is silent. DOE provides a
general response to the issue of authority under 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D) later in this section.
AHRI, First Co., Ingersoll Rand, Morrison, Mortex Products, Inc.,
Goodman, and Lennox commented that CAC and heat pump products like
split-system packaged central air conditioners and heat pump air
handlers should be excluded because the electrical consumption of their
circulation fans is already addressed in the seasonal energy efficiency
ratio (SEER) and heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF)
descriptors. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 74; First
Co., No. 10 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at p. 98; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 2; Mortex, No. 18 at p. 1; Goodman,
No. 17 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 2). First Co. points out that in
the NOPR, DOE proposed not to adopt additional test procedure
provisions for standby and off mode electrical energy consumption of
furnace fans used in furnaces and CAC and heat pumps given that
consumption in these modes either has been or is in the process of
being fully addressed in other rulemakings. Applying the same
principle, First Co. states that there is no need for DOE to adopt
additional test procedures for furnace fans in central air conditioners
in this rulemaking because their energy usage is addressed by the SEER
descriptor under the standard.
First Co. also commented that EPCA allows for the development of
more than one standard for products that serve more than one major
function, but limits DOE's authority to setting one standard for each
major function. 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5) According to First Co., to the
extent that DOE has the authority to regulate the energy efficiency of
``furnace fans,'' it does not have authority to require manufacturers
of central air conditioners to meet a separate standard for a component
of the system already tested and rated under the SEER standard. (First
Co., No. 10 at p.2.) Ingersoll Rand echoed First Co.'s sentiments,
stating that further testing of air handlers would be redundant and add
regulatory burden with no benefit because all air handlers are
currently tested as part of a CAC or HP system with the fan power
included in the SEER, EER, and HSPF descriptors. Ingersoll Rand added
that consumer confusion is a likely unintended consequence. (Ingersoll
Rand, No. 14 at p. 2.) Goodman submitted that cooling hours and energy
consumption should be removed from the metric for all covered products
to eliminate duplicate regulations. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.)
AHRI, Ingersoll Rand, and Morrison commented that modular blowers
and hydronic air handlers should not be covered in this test procedure
because they are beyond the authority provided by EPCA and are not
currently regulated product classes. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 2; Ingersoll
Rand, No. 14 at p. 2; Morrison, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
88.)
Several interested parties commented that the test procedure should
address operation of furnace fans as installed in the products in which
they are sold rather than separately. DOE acknowledges that its NOPR
may not have been clear in indicating that the test procedure proposal
would apply to operation of fans while installed in these products.
Consequently, some interested parties recommend that DOE consider the
air handler (i.e. the entire HVAC product) and not just the furnace fan
by testing furnace fans in-situ. The American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy (ACEEE) commented that limiting the scope of the rule
to a narrow box around the sheet metal, fan motor, impeller and shroud
is inappropriate because a large fraction of the electricity
consumption of these devices has to do with the aerodynamics of the air
handler cabinet, as shown in previous DOE work conducted by Ian Walker
of Lawrence Berkley National Lab (LBNL). (ACEEE, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 16.) Adjuvant Consulting (``Adjuvant''), the
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC), and the Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) agree with ACEEE that air handlers
should be the covered product in this rulemaking. (Adjuvant, Public
Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp. 29, 30; NPCC/NEEA, No. 22 at p. 3.)
As mentioned above, the test procedure proposed in the NOPR and the
test procedure proposed herein would apply to the energy use for air
circulation of the furnace fan as factory-
[[Page 19611]]
installed in the HVAC product, rather than stand-alone performance.
During the comment period of the test procedure NOPR, DOE published
a Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of Preliminary Analysis
Support Document for the furnace fans energy conservation standard
rulemaking on July 10, 2012. 77 FR 40530. For the preliminary analysis,
DOE decided that, although the title of the statutory section refers to
``furnaces and boilers,'' the provision governing the products at issue
in this rulemaking was written using notably broader language than the
other provisions within the same section, referring to ``electricity
used for purposes of circulating air through ductwork.'' \5\ (42 U.S.C.
6295(f)) Consequently, DOE maintained its interpretation that its
authority is not limited to circulation fans used in furnaces. DOE
explained that it proposed to address in the current energy
conservation standard rulemaking those products for which DOE has
sufficient data and information to develop credible analyses, and that
it may consider covering air circulation fans used in other HVAC
products in a future rulemaking as data become available. DOE's
preliminary analysis addressed furnace fans used in weatherized and
non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric furnaces, modular
blowers, and hydronic air handlers. Many comments on DOE's preliminary
analysis that address scope of coverage are discussed in this section
because they provide additional commentary regarding the scope of
applicability of the test procedure. The comments referenced below are
available in docket number EERE-2010-BT-STD-0010 per the instructions
provided in the ADDRESSES section of this SNOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Please refer to Chapter 2 of the furnace fans preliminary
analysis technical support document (TSD). The furnace fans
preliminary analysis TSD is available on the DOE Web site: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency advocates expressed concern at the exclusion of furnace
fans used in split-system CAC and heat pump products and requested that
they be added to the scope. (Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP), Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 17; Adjuvant, Preliminary
Analysis, No. 43 at p. 39.) Specifically, efficiency advocates
commented that although the fan energy use is incorporated as part of
the efficiency metrics--SEER and HSPF--prescribed by DOE for these
products (10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M), the external static
pressures (ESPs) used to determine the SEER and HSPF do not reflect as-
installed conditions, in which ESP is generally significantly higher.
(ASAP, Preliminary Analysis, No. 43 at p. 38; Earthjustice, Preliminary
Analysis, No. 49 at p. 1.) In a joint comment from ACEEE, ASAP, the
National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), NEEA, and the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), hereinafter referred to as ACEEE, et al., in
addition to a comment from the California investor-owned utilities (CA
IOU), efficiency advocates stated that the reference ESP of 0.1 to 0.2
in. w.c. was too low when compared to the average field ESP of 0.73 in.
w.c. as identified in the TSD. (ACEEE, et al., Preliminary Analysis,
No. 55 at p. 1; CA IOU, Preliminary Analysis, No. 56 at p. 2.) ACEEE,
et al. also noted that SEER and HSPF do not account for continuous
circulation operation, which is expected to increase as stricter
building codes call for tighter building envelopes. (ACEEE, et al.,
Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 2; CA IOU, Preliminary Analysis, No.
56 at p. 3.) By excluding these products from the analysis, ACEEE, et
al. believes that DOE is ignoring a significant fraction of the furnace
fan market. (ACEEE, et al., Preliminary Analysis, No. 55 at p. 1.)
Manufacturers' comments in response to the preliminary analysis
regarding the scope of coverage were similar to their comments on the
test procedure NOPR. In contrast to efficiency advocates and utilities,
many manufacturers believe that the scope of coverage presented in the
preliminary analysis exceeds the authority granted to DOE by EPCA and
should not include any non-furnace products such as central air
conditioners, heat pumps, or condensing unit-blower-coil combinations.
(First Co., Preliminary Analysis, No. 53 at p. 1.)
DOE notes that, although the title of this statutory section refers
to ``furnaces and boilers,'' the applicable provision at 42 U.S.C.
6295(f)(4)(D) was written using broader language than the other
provisions within 42 U.S.C. 6295(f). Specifically, that statutory
provision directs DOE to ``consider and prescribe energy conservation
standards or energy use standards for electricity used for purposes of
circulating air through ductwork.'' Such language could be interpreted
as encompassing electrically-powered devices used in any residential
HVAC product to circulate air through ductwork, not just furnaces, and
DOE has received numerous comments on both sides of this issue. At the
present time, however, DOE is only proposing test procedures for those
circulation fans that are used in residential furnaces and modular
blowers. As a result, DOE is not addressing public comments that
pertain to fans in other types of HVAC products. The following list
describes the furnace fans which DOE proposes to address as well as
those not addressed in this rulemaking.
Products addressed in this rulemaking: furnace fans used
in weatherized and non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil furnaces, electric
furnaces, and modular blowers.
Products not addressed in this rulemaking: furnace fans
used in other products, such as split-system CAC and heat pump air
handlers, through-the-wall air handlers, SDHV air handlers, ERVs, HRVs,
draft inducer fans, exhaust fans, or hydronic air handlers.
DOE is using the term ``modular blower'' to refer to HVAC products
powered by single-phase electricity that comprise an encased
circulation blower that is intended to be the principal air circulation
source for the living space of a residence. A modular blower is not
contained within the same cabinet as a residential furnace, CAC, or
heat pump. Instead, modular blowers are designed to be paired with
separate residential HVAC products that provide heating and cooling,
typically a separate CAC/HP coil-only unit. DOE finds that modular
blowers and electric furnaces are very similar in design. In many
cases, the only difference between a modular blower and electric
furnace is the presence of an electric resistance heating kit. DOE is
aware that some modular blower manufacturers offer electric resistance
heating kits to be installed in their modular blower models so that the
modular blowers can be converted to stand-alone electric furnaces. In
addition, FER values for modular blowers can be easily calculated using
the proposed test procedure. DOE proposes to address the furnace fans
used in modular blowers in this rulemaking for these reasons. The
proposed definition for ``modular blower'' is provided in section
III.C.
This proposed furnace fan test procedure would adopt a significant
number of provisions from the DOE furnace test procedure and would not
result in significant capital expenditures for manufacturers because
they would not have to acquire or use any test equipment beyond the
equipment that they already use to conduct the test method specified in
the DOE furnace test procedure (i.e. the AFUE test setup). DOE also
finds that the time to conduct a single furnace fan test according to
its proposed furnace fan test procedure would be less than 3 hours and
cost less than one percent of the manufacturer selling price of the
product in which the
[[Page 19612]]
furnace fan is integrated. Section IV.B of this notice includes a more
detailed discussion of manufacturer test burden. Consequently, DOE does
not find that testing furnace fans according to this proposed test
procedure would be unduly burdensome.
After considering available information and public comments
regarding the test procedure being applicable to fan operation in
cooling mode, DOE maintains its proposal to account for the electrical
consumption of furnace fans while performing all active mode functions
(i.e., heating, cooling, and constant circulation). DOE recognizes that
furnace fans are used not just for circulating air through ductwork
during heating operation, but also for circulating air during cooling
and constant-circulation operation. DOE anticipates that higher
airflow-control settings are factory set for cooling operation.
Therefore, DOE expects that the electrical energy consumption of a
furnace fan is generally higher while performing the cooling function.
Additionally, the design of the fan as well as its typical operating
characteristics (i.e., ESP levels during operation in different modes)
is directly related to the performance requirements in cooling mode.
DOE is also concerned that excluding some functions from consideration
in rating furnace fan performance would incentivize manufacturers to
design fans that are optimized to perform efficiently at the selected
rating airflow-control settings but that are not efficient over the
broad range of field operating conditions. In DOE's view, in order to
obtain a complete assessment of overall performance and a metric that
reflects the product's electrical energy consumption during a
representative average use cycle, the test procedure must account for
electrical consumption in a set of airflow-control settings that spans
all active mode functions. This would ensure a more accurate accounting
of the benefits of improved furnace fans.
DOE is aware that electrical consumption of the fan is accounted
for in the SEER and HSPF metrics that DOE uses for CAC and heat pump
products. However, DOE does not agree with First Co.'s interpretation
that the EPCA language limits DOE's authority to setting one standard
for each major product function and precludes DOE from rating furnace
fan consumption in operating modes that are accounted for by these
metrics. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(5)) EPCA's language in section 6295(o)(5)
is phrased in the permissive, rather than the restrictive.\6\ In DOE's
view, this permissive language does not impose a limitation on DOE's
authority to regulate fan electrical consumption for these products
across all operating modes. Furthermore, it is inapposite in this
situation, where two different products are being regulated, one the
CAC or heat pump product, and one the separate furnace fan product,
which may or may not be incorporated into a CAC or heat pump. SEER and
HSPF are used to test cooling and heating performance of a CAC or heat
pump product, whereas FER rates airflow performance of a furnace fan
product. While furnace fan airflow performance contributes to cooling
and heating performance, manufacturers can improve SEER and HSPF
without improving fan performance. In short, SEER- and HSPF-based
standards do not directly target the efficiency of furnace fans. DOE
recognizes that the energy savings in cooling mode from higher-
efficiency furnace fans used in some higher efficiency CAC and heat
pumps is already accounted for in the analysis of standards on those
products as a result. DOE conducted its preliminary analysis to avoid
double-counting these benefits by excluding furnace fan electricity
savings that were already included in DOE's analysis for CAC and heat
pump products. Section 2.7 of chapter 2 and chapter 8 of the
preliminary analysis TSD provide a discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Section 6295(o)(5) provides as follows: ``The Secretary may
set more than 1 energy conservation standard for products that serve
more than 1 major function by setting 1 energy conservation standard
for each major function.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. AHRI Test Method
In the NOPR in response to comments on the June 2010 Framework
Document, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference ANSI/AMCA 210-07,
citing comments that manufacturers currently use ANSI/AMCA 210-07 to
measure furnace fan performance. The NOPR provides a more detailed
discussion of DOE's consideration of ANSI/AMCA 210-07 and alternative
reference standards. 77 FR at 28677 (May 15, 2012). Commenting on the
NOPR, manufacturers recommended that DOE incorporate provisions from
ASHRAE 37 instead of ANSI/AMCA 210-07. Ingersoll Rand commented that
fan performance data from a DOE test procedure that references ANSI/
AMCA 210-07 would not be consistent with existing data, which is
generated using ASHRAE 37. (Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 30) Lennox asserted that if DOE uses a test procedure that
specifies an airflow calculation, then ANSI/AMCA 210 is not the
appropriate standard. According to Lennox, ASHRAE 37 would be more
appropriate if DOE specifies airflow calculations. (Lennox, No. 12 at
p. 4.) Goodman stated that its airflow measurements for furnaces are
currently performed using ASHRAE 37 setups and calculations. Further,
Goodman pointed out that DOE test procedures to measure airflow and
power input for central air conditioners and heat pumps as defined in
Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 require that furnace fan
performance be measured per ASHRAE 37 for use in determining ratings
for SEER and HSPF. Therefore, according to Goodman, DOE's proposal to
use ANSI/AMCA 210-07 would require manufacturers to test the same
product with two different test methods to rate furnace fans. Goodman
believes that such an outcome is contrary to Congressional intent and
the consumers' best interests. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4.) Morrison
added that ANSI/AMCA 210-07 is designed to test stand-alone fans, while
ASHRAE 37 is more appropriate for testing fans as part of appliances.
(Morrison, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 38.) Interested
parties commented that in-situ testing (i.e. installed in the HVAC
product) is more appropriate than testing the furnace fan removed from
the product in which it is integrated. In a joint comment, ASAP, ACEEE,
NRDC, and NCLC, hereinafter referred to as the ``Joint Commenters,''
supported DOE's decision to test the furnace fan as factory-installed
in an HVAC product, which would more accurately account for as-deployed
energy consumption. (Joint Commenters, No. 13 at p. 2.) ACEEE explained
that the impacts of the aerodynamics of the HVAC product cabinet on fan
performance cannot be measured by testing the fan removed from the
cabinet. Unico, Inc. (``Unico'') and Ingersoll Rand echoed these
sentiments, stating that the furnace fan should be tested as part of
the appliance because the appliance components dictate fan performance.
(Unico, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 94; Ingersoll Rand,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 97.) Adjuvant stated that
testing air handlers is more difficult than DOE's proposal depicts
because of the necessity to specify appurtenances and other issues like
cabinet leakage. (Adjuvant, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at pp.
29, 30, 47.)
DOE agrees with interested parties that furnace fans should be
tested in a laboratory and as factory-installed in the HVAC product
with which it is
[[Page 19613]]
integrated (i.e., in-situ) to account for the impacts of airflow path
design on furnace fan performance. In the NOPR, DOE included language
in the proposed regulatory text that specified that furnace fans be
tested in-situ. 77 FR at 28699 (May 15, 2012). DOE recognizes that the
preamble language of the NOPR may not have been clear in this regard.
In this notice, DOE proposes to specify that furnace fans be tested in-
situ.
In written comments, AHRI (with support from Goodman, Ingersoll
Rand, Lennox, and Morrison) proposed an alternative test method that
they argue would result in accurate and repeatable FER values that are
comparable to the FER values resulting from the test procedure proposed
in the NOPR, but at significantly reduced test burden. (AHRI, No. 16 at
p. 3; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14 at p. 1;
Morrison, No. 21 at p. 3.) AHRI recommends that DOE specify the
following procedures to generate the measurements used to rate furnace
fan performance (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3):
The furnace should be set up on the test stand that is
used to measure AFUE.
Initially, the furnace should be operated in the maximum
airflow-control setting having adjusted the duct restrictions to
achieve the external static pressure (ESP) proposed in the NOPR while
in the heating mode (i.e., firing the burner). Fuel input, temperature
rise and power should be measured.
Subsequently, power should be measured while operating the
furnace in the heating airflow-control setting and again while
operating the furnace in the constant circulation airflow-control
setting, both without changing the initial duct restrictions in any way
and without firing the furnace.
The maximum airflow used to normalize the FER metric
should be calculated (instead of measured directly) based on the
measured temperature rise, measured fuel input, AFUE, and the known
heat capacity of air.
Measurements should be taken at nominal voltage and no
voltage adjustments should be allowed.
FER should be calculated using the annual operating hours
that DOE proposed in the NOPR.
AHRI estimates an approximate 80-90% reduction in testing burden
through the adoption of its proposed test method. AHRI stated that this
reduction is due, in part, to manufacturers not having to acquire or
use any test equipment beyond the equipment that is already used to
conduct the testing specified in the DOE furnace test procedure (i.e.,
the AFUE test setup). (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) Most of the products to
which this procedure applies are furnaces subject to the DOE furnace
test procedure. Rheem Manufacturing Company (``Rheem''), Morrison, and
Lennox also identified using the same test stand for FER and AFUE
testing as an opportunity to minimize burden on manufacturers. (Rheem,
No. 25 at p. 4; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 7; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.)
Lennox stated that by requiring an additional setup and test process
far outside the AFUE testing requirements, the burden on the
engineering and documentation side of the proposed procedure is
significant. (Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) Mortex, a small manufacturer,
requested that furnace fan testing have a minimum burden on industry
and be within the economic capabilities of the small manufacturers that
would be impacted. Mortex explained that small manufacturers are low
production volume, high product mix manufacturers and only build
products when they are ordered. (Mortex, No. 18 at p. 2.) Goodman
echoed Mortex's sentiments, stating that the cost to initiate and
perform tests using the certified test facility required by ANSI/AMCA
210 as proposed in the NOPR is disproportionally burdensome to small
manufacturers that produce 100 to 200 made-to-order units each needing
individual certification. (Mortex, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at
p. 21, 232; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 2.) According to Mortex, capturing
the airflow and electrical input power at a few additional airflow-
control settings as part of testing for AFUE and Eae, as
suggested by AHRI, would be relatively inexpensive. Mortex added that
this simplified method should not require any capital outlay as
compared to DOE's proposed method, which is estimated to require
$150,000 for a code tester setup. (Mortex, No. 18 at p. 2.) Mortex
stated during the public meeting that using the AFUE set up and
calculating airflow based on temperature rise to rate furnace fans
would be feasible for small manufacturers. Mortex added the caveat that
such a method would only be feasible if paired with a reasonable
confidence level (i.e., the statistical confidence limit expressed as a
percentage that must be achieved for the results of the group of
samples tested according to the proposed sampling plan). (Mortex,
Public Meeting Transcript, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p.
234.) A detailed discussion of the proposed sampling plan, including
the proposed confidence limit, is provided in section III.D.
AHRI attributed some of the projected reduction in burden of its
recommended test method to the labor savings that manufacturers would
experience with respect to conducting tests and calculations. (AHRI,
No. 16 at p. 3.) Allied Air Enterprises (``Allied Air'') commented that
the time and cost of conducting the proposed test procedure would be
unduly burdensome. (Allied Air, No 23 at p. 20.) Rheem and Lennox
commented that measuring airflow is difficult, labor- and capital-
intensive, and not necessary to rate furnace fan electrical energy use.
(Rheem, No. 25 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 4.) As mentioned
previously, Mortex suggested that airflow could be calculated by using
the temperature rise methodology already employed for the DOE furnace
test procedure prior to AHRI submitting its recommended alternative
test method. (Mortex, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 234.)
Goodman performed tests according to both DOE's proposed procedure and
AHRI's suggested method and found that testing time is reduced by
almost 60% using AHRI's method. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3.) Rheem also
conducted tests according to both procedures and stated that the time
to test a single-stage furnace was reduced from 4 hours to 45 minutes
by using the AHRI method. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.)
AHRI claimed that its suggested method would eliminate potential
issues associated with fitting quadratic curves to the test data to
derive FER as proposed in the NOPR. According to AHRI and Morrison, the
quadratic curves can be easily manipulated. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3;
Morrison, No. 21 at p. 5.) Furthermore, AHRI stated that the quadratic
curves can be significantly skewed through a single incorrect
measurement. (AHRI, No. 16 at p. 3.) Morrison agrees that DOE should
abandon the system curve approach in favor of AHRI's proposed method
because eliminating the need to curve fit and find the intersection of
second order polynomials would reduce the burden on manufacturers.
Morrison stated that the added burden of the NOPR method does not
provide any added value to the purpose of saving energy, guiding
consumers in making correct choices, or enhancing the regulatory
process. (Morrison, No. 21 at p. 5.) NEEA explained that the need for
quadratic curve-fitting could be eliminated by establishing the
specified external static pressure values in a specific mode, and then
running the remaining tests in other modes without modifying the
physical test apparatus set-up. NEEA and NPPC suggested that DOE
consider this simplified approach. According to NEEA and NPPC, the
[[Page 19614]]
result would be testing an air handler against a fixed intake and
discharge configuration, accepting whatever static pressure the system
generates when testing in modes other than the initial mode. NEEA and
NPCC contended that this is how duct systems work in the field--they
are in a fixed physical configuration and the air handler deals with
the external static pressure created and imposed, regardless of what
mode it is in. (NEEA/NPCC, No. 22 at pp. 2-3.)
Goodman commented that test results show that FER values generated
using AHRI's test method are within 5% of the FER values generated
using the test procedure proposed in the NOPR. (Goodman, No. 17 at p.
4.) Rheem's test results show similar results. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.)
Efficiency advocates agreed that some hybrid of reference standards
could be used to develop a test procedure that is less burdensome than
wholly adopting ANSI/AMCA 210. However, the Joint Commenters stated
that simply implementing ASHRAE 37 is an incomplete solution because
this method lacks an electrical energy consumption measurement. (Joint
Commenters, No. 13 at p. 3.) The CA IOU advised DOE to develop a hybrid
test procedure that draws from AMCA 210, ASHRAE 37, and AHRI 210-240
but emphasized that portions of AMCA 210 are needed for measuring fan
power at different airflow rates. (CA IOU, No. 20 at p. 1.) While
unclear from CA IOU's comments, DOE infers that the CA IOU are
referring to provisions for measuring fan performance in multiple
airflow-control settings.
In today's notice, DOE proposes to adopt a modified version of the
alternative test method proposed by AHRI. DOE agrees that the key
concept embodied in the alternative method suggested by AHRI and
manufacturers (using temperature rise to determine airflow) can be a
viable approach to obtain accurate and repeatable FER values at
significantly reduced burden. The methods suggested by AHRI are already
used in existing industry and DOE test methods. ASHRAE 37 includes
determining airflow based on temperature rise as an alternative method
to using differential pressure across nozzles. In addition, the DOE
test procedure for furnaces includes well established and accurate
methods for measurement of temperature rise, fuel input, and steady
state combustion efficiency based on flue gas temperature and carbon
dioxide concentrations. Additionally, DOE recognizes the opportunity to
reduce test burden by: (1) Aligning the furnace fan test set up and
procedures with those of the existing DOE furnace test procedure; and
(2) maintaining the same duct restrictions throughout the test after
initial reference system conditions are met in lieu of the previously
proposed methods of making multiple determinations in each airflow-
control setting and curve-fitting to identify operating points. DOE
also agrees with advocates and utilities that the proposed test
procedure should reflect field ESP conditions and measure furnace fan
electrical input power in multiple airflow-control settings. The AHRI
method includes provisions that meet these goals. DOE has considered
the AHRI approach and has concluded that some clarifications and
modifications are necessary to make the approach more practicable and
accurate. For these reasons, DOE proposes to adopt a modified version
of the alternative furnace fan test procedure proposed by AHRI.
DOE proposes the following additions and modifications to the test
method recommended by AHRI:
Airflow in the maximum airflow-control setting would be
calculated based on measured air temperature rise when the HVAC product
is in a heating-mode airflow-control setting rather than in the maximum
airflow-control setting.
In the airflow calculation presented by AHRI, AFUE would
be replaced by a function of steady state efficiency
(EffySS), measured fuel energy input rate (QIN),
jacket losses (LJ), and fan electrical input power
(EHeat) measured according to ASHRAE 103-2007 at the
specified operating conditions.
External static pressure would be measured as specified in
ASHRAE 37.
Additional thermocouples would be added to the outlet
grids used to measure temperature rise.
Use of a mixer, as described in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.1-
1986 (RA 2006), would be required to minimize outlet flow temperature
gradients if the temperature difference between any two thermocouples
is greater than 1.5[emsp14][deg]F.
Greater temperature measurement accuracy and tighter
stabilization criteria would be specified.
The 18 [deg]F temperature rise minimum specified by ASHRAE
37-2005 would be incorporated by reference.
Each of the listed modifications is described and explained in more
detail in subsequent sections.
1. Calculating Maximum Airflow
AHRI proposes to calculate airflow based on measured temperature
rise, rated input heat capacity, and AFUE using the following equation
(AHRI, No. 26 at p. 23):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.030
Where:
Q = airflow, in cubic feet per minute (CFM),
AFUE = annual fuel utilization efficiency, as determined by the DOE
furnace test procedure,
QIN = fuel energy maximum nameplate input rate at steady-state
operating (including any pilot light input), in British Thermal
Units per hour (Btu/h),
1.08 = Conversion from airflow and temperature rise to heating
rate, and
[Delta]T = measured temperature rise.
DOE is concerned that using AFUE and the nameplate fuel energy
input rate, as defined in AHRI's proposal, would not result in accurate
representations of airflow at the proposed operating conditions
because: (1) Neither parameter is measured at the proposed operating
conditions; and (2) AFUE is a function of off-cycle parameters such as
infiltration heat loss and pilot light heat generation, which do not
contribute to the temperature rise proposed to be used to calculate
airflow. While temperature rise would be measured at the ESP levels
outlined in AHRI's alternative method (which are equivalent to those
proposed in the NOPR and herein), AFUE and nameplate input rate would
be determined based on measurements taken at the ESP levels required by
the DOE furnace test procedure (i.e. specified in ASHRAE 103-1993),
which are significantly lower. Also, results from a 2002 comparison of
AFUE and steady stat efficiency show that the steady state efficiency
ranges from zero to three percent higher than AFUE.\7\ More recent DOE
tests yielded similar results, with steady state efficiency reaching as
high as six percent higher than AFUE. DOE proposes to use steady state
efficiency and fuel energy input measured at the proposed operating
conditions, instead of AFUE and nameplate fuel energy input, to address
these discrepancies and minimize the resulting inaccuracies in
calculated airflow. Manufacturers would only be required to take two
additional measurements (flue or stack gas temperature and carbon
dioxide concentration) using equipment that is already in place for
AFUE testing as a result of the proposed modification. DOE recognizes
that replacing AFUE with steady state combustion efficiency at
operating conditions would also require that jacket losses and the
usable heat generated by the motor be included
[[Page 19615]]
in the calculation. The DOE test procedure for furnaces already
includes methods for accounting for these additional factors.
Accordingly, DOE proposes to use the following equation to calculate
airflow:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Workshop on Residential Furnace and Boiler Venting.
May 2002. https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/furnboil_050802_reswh.html.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
DOE requests comments on the proposed changes to the equation for
calculating airflow. DOE recognizes that the use of the 1.08 conversion
factor assumes that the airflow has standard air properties (e.g.,
standard air density and specific heat). DOE anticipates that the
properties of the airflow under test may deviate from these values at
actual test conditions, resulting in inaccurate airflow calculation
results. DOE expects that variation in airflow density would be the
significant driver of these inaccuracies. Therefore, DOE also requests
comment on whether the conversion factor should be adjusted by the
barometric pressure at test conditions. (See Issue 1 under ``Issues on
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE is concerned that certain of the test conditions proposed by
AHRI could lead to test results that are not representative of actual
furnace fan energy use. AHRI's recommended method specifies that the
maximum airflow be calculated based on a temperature rise measurement
taken while operating the furnace in the maximum airflow-control
setting and firing the burner. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 21.) DOE is aware
that the maximum airflow-control setting is often designated for
cooling operation and not for heating. DOE anticipates that firing the
burner while the furnace is in the maximum airflow-control setting is
not typical of furnace operation, and that achieving this combination
of settings by interfacing with the furnace controls may not be
possible. The AHRI approach also specifies electrical input power in
the heating airflow-control setting be measured without firing the
burner.
DOE proposes to modify the AHRI recommended method to specify that
maximum airflow be calculated based on a temperature rise measurement
taken while operating the furnace in the rated heating airflow-control
setting and firing the burner at the heat input capacity associated
with that airflow-control setting. For more details regarding the
proposed rated airflow-control settings, refer to Table II.2 in the
Summary of the NOPR, 77 FR at 28676 (May 15, 2012). DOE expects that
these proposed combinations of operating conditions are typical of
field furnace use. These requirements would help ensure that test
results are representative of actual furnace fan energy use, and would
minimize the potential difficulties associated with firing the furnace
in an airflow-control setting not intended for heating. DOE is not
proposing any changes in this notice to the rated airflow-control
settings proposed in the NOPR. The procedure proposed herein would
require that the temperature rise measurement be taken in the default
heating airflow-control setting for single-stage furnaces and in the
default low heating airflow-control setting for multi-stage and
modulating furnaces.
DOE recognizes that, compared to AHRI's suggested method, more
complex calculations are required to determine the airflow in the
maximum airflow-control setting based on a temperature rise measurement
in the heating airflow-control setting. DOE proposes to specify that
ESP measurements be taken in conjunction with the temperature rise and
furnace fan electrical input power measurements for each rated airflow-
control setting. Airflow in the rated heating airflow-control setting
can be calculated using the airflow calculation equation proposed
above. Once the airflow in the rated heating airflow-control setting
has been calculated, the physical constant (kref) can be calculated
using the equation below. kref characterizes the reference system duct
restrictions set in the initial test conditions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.020
Where:
kref = physical constant that characterizes the reference system
duct restrictions,
ESPHeat = external static pressure measured at the operating point
in the heating airflow-control setting, and
QHeat = airflow in the rated heating airflow-control setting.
The same value for kref can be used to characterize the system for
all airflow-control settings because the same duct restrictions would
be used for all test settings. Airflow in the maximum airflow-control
setting would be calculated using kref and the ESP measured in the
maximum airflow-control setting using the following equation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.021
DOE is aware that ESP, airflow, and electrical input measurements
could vary due to the different physical properties of air
(particularly density) at higher temperature. As a result, a different
kref may apply when the furnace is firing as compared with room-
temperature operation without firing. To a first order, the pressure
drop imposed by flow through ductwork can be approximated as being
proportional to fluid density multiplied by the square of the velocity.
The velocity for a given mass flow is proportional to the inverse of
the density. The density is inversely
[[Page 19616]]
proportional to absolute temperature (i.e. the temperature expressed in
degrees Kelvin or Rankine). Hence, the relationship between ESP and
temperature for a fixed mass flow of air approximately exhibits the
following proportionality:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.022
Where:
[rho] = Air density,
v = Air velocity,
T = Air temperature in degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F), and
460 = Conversion from degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Rankine.
For operation of a furnace, the higher ESP that occurs when it is
firing would reduce the mass flow of air. Consequently, the value of
QMax, as calculated according to the QMax
equation proposed by DOE above would be slightly lower than the actual
maximum airflow. This is because ESPHeat would be slightly elevated and
QHeat slightly reduced for the hot flow that occurs during the
measurement relative to the way the system would behave for room
temperature operating conditions. DOE proposes an adjustment in the
QMax equation proposed by DOE above to account for the elevated
temperature in the ductwork during the measurement, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.023
Where:
THeat = Outlet air temperature in the heating airflow-control
setting, and
TMax = Outlet air temperature in the maximum airflow-control
setting.
DOE requests comment on the proposed adjustment to the QMax
calculation above, which would result in greater accuracy in
determination of the maximum airflow rate. DOE also requests comments
on the proposed modified method for calculating airflow in the maximum
airflow-control setting. Specifically, DOE requests comments on how
ESP, furnace fan electrical input power, and airflow measurements are
impacted by temperature rise. DOE also seeks comment on how those
relationships would impact the accuracy of the calculated value of QMax
and, ultimately, FER. (See Issue 2 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE recognizes that a more accurate measurement of temperature rise
could be made at higher temperature rises because the allowable error
in temperature measurements would represent a lower percentage of the
overall temperature rise. For example, the maximum allowable proposed
error of 1 [deg]F ( 0.5 [deg]F at both the
inlet and outlet) would represent an approximate error of 3 percent for
a temperature rise of 30 [deg]F, and half as much for a 60 [deg]F
temperature rise. DOE is aware that operating the furnace in the
reduced heat setting for multi-stage furnaces would result in a lower
temperature rise than if fired in the maximum heat setting. DOE
requests comment on whether the maximum airflow should be calculated
based on the temperature rise measured while operating the furnace fan
in the maximum default heat airflow-control setting and at maximum heat
input capacity to minimize the effect of temperature measurement error
on the overall FER calculation. (See Issue 3 under ``Issues on Which
DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
DOE is concerned that at higher elevations the temperature rise
would be greater due to reduced air mass flow, resulting in a higher
calculated airflow. DOE requests comments on the magnitude of potential
elevation impacts on calculated airflow and FER values. DOE also
requests comments on whether specifications, such as a maximum test
elevation or elevation adjustment factor, should be used to avoid
circumvention associated with conducting this test at high elevation.
(See Issue 4 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B
of this SNOPR.)
2. ASHRAE 37 External Static Pressure Measurements
DOE believes that more detailed specifications for setting and
measuring ESP are required than those in the AHRI suggested test
method. AHRI's suggested test method specifies that the reference
system ESP be achieved by ``symmetrically restricting the outlet of the
test duct.'' (AHRI, No. 26 at pp. 8, 19, 20) The AHRI test method does
not provide details on the equipment or procedures that should be used
to meet this requirement. (DOE is aware that independent test labs
typically apply cardboard ducting or tape to the corners of the outlet
to achieve the desired ESP.) DOE requests comments on whether one or
more methods for restricting the outlet duct should be included in the
test procedure. (See Issue 5 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
According to AHRI's suggested test method, use of a return air duct
in the test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 20.) DOE proposes to
also allow for the optional use of a return air duct; however, DOE is
concerned that ESP may differ when measured with a return air duct
compared to when measured without a return air duct. DOE believes that
each different motor type may react differently with the use of a
return air duct, but the impacts on the FER measurements may be small.
DOE requests comments on the ESP measurements and FER values that
result when not using a return air duct compared to when a return air
duct is used, and whether the test procedure should explicitly require
use of a return air duct. (See Issue 6 under ``Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI's suggested test method specifies that ESP measurements be
made between the furnace openings and any restrictions or elbows in the
test plenums or ducts and as close as possible to the air supply and
return openings of the furnace. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 20) DOE proposes to
incorporate by reference the ASHRAE 37 provisions for measuring ESP
(sections 6.4 and 6.5), which are consistent with AHRI's suggested
specifications and provide more detail. DOE anticipates that these more
detailed specifications would minimize variations in test setups and,
in turn, improve repeatability. DOE proposes to specify that ESP be
measured according to the setup illustrated in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37
when a return air duct is used. This setup would require direct
measurement of the static pressure difference between the inlet and
outlet of the unit under test as opposed to taking separate static
measurements at the inlet and outlet and calculating the difference
between the two measurements. Direct measurement in this context means
that the inlet and outlet pressure signal tubing would be connected on
opposite sides of a single manometer, rather than using two manometers
or transducers, each being open to the ambient on one
[[Page 19617]]
side. DOE proposes to specify that ESP be measured according to the
setup illustrated in Figure 7 of ASHRAE 37 when a return air duct is
not used. DOE does not anticipate any issues with specifying ASHRAE 37
provisions for measuring ESP because, as mentioned above, manufacturers
commented that ASHRAE 37 is a widely used standard for testing HVAC
products and is recommended for rating furnace fans. DOE requests
comments on its proposed provisions for measuring ESP, which are
adopted from ASHRAE 37-2005. (See Issue 7 under ``Issues on Which DOE
Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
3. Temperature Rise Measurements
DOE recognizes that FER results generated according to the proposed
test procedure are sensitive to the temperature rise measurement that
would be used to calculate the airflow in the maximum airflow-control
setting. DOE expects that the equipment and methods used to measure
temperature rise in the AHRI method can be improved, which would result
in a more accurate and repeatable test procedure. The modifications
that DOE proposes are mostly derived from the provisions of the
alternative method for calculating airflow specified in section 7.7.1.2
and 7.7.4 of ASHRAE 37-2005.
AHRI's recommended method adopts ASHRAE 103-2007 provisions that
specify that temperature measurements shall have an error no greater
than 2 [deg]F. In the worst case scenario, an error of 2
[deg]F on both the inlet and outlet temperature measurements could
result in an error of 4 [deg]F. DOE estimates that an error of 4 [deg]F
for the temperature rise measurement could yield an error of
approximately 10% in FER for a typical temperature rise between 30
[deg]F and 60 [deg]F.
DOE proposes to specify that temperature measurements have an error
no greater than 0.5 [deg]F. The accuracy requirements of
existing test standards that are used to test these products are more
stringent--Table 1 in section 4 of ASHRAE 37-2005 requires temperature
measurement accuracy of 0.2 [deg]F. DOE requests comment on
whether 0.5 [deg]F is reasonably achievable. (See Issue 8
under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this
SNOPR.)
AHRI's proposed method does not include a minimum temperature rise
requirement. DOE is concerned that the allowable error in temperature
measurements coupled with a low temperature rise could result in
inaccurate test results. For this reason, DOE proposes to require a
minimum temperature rise of 18 [deg]F, as specified in ASHRAE 37-2005.
DOE notes that with its proposed 0.5 [deg]F temperature
measurement accuracy requirement and its proposed minimum 18 [deg]F
temperature rise, the maximum potential error in measured airflow
associated with the temperature rise measurement is approximately 5.6%.
DOE requests comments on whether a minimum temperature rise should be
required and, if so, what is an appropriate value for the minimum
temperature rise. (See Issue 9 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks
Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI's recommended method adopts the stabilization criteria of the
DOE test procedure for residential furnaces. 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix N, section 7.0. According to section 7.0 of the DOE test
procedure for furnaces, which references section 8.0 of ASHRAE 103-
1993, steady-state conditions for gas and oil furnaces are attained as
indicated by a temperature variation in three successive readings,
taken 15 minutes apart, of not more than:
3 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces
equipped with draft diverters;
5 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces
equipped with either draft hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent
systems; and
1 [deg]F in the flue gas temperature for condensing
furnaces.
For electric furnaces, steady-state conditions are reached as
indicated by a temperature variation of not more than 5 [deg]F in the
outlet temperature in four successive temperature readings taken 15
minutes apart.
DOE is concerned that the temperature variations specified in the
above stabilization criteria are not stringent enough to maximize
accuracy and repeatability for evaluating furnace fan performance. As
mentioned above, the FER results generated according to the proposed
test procedure are sensitive to temperature variation because they are
a function of the airflow calculated using measured temperature rise.
DOE proposes the following stabilization criteria to address this
concern. For testing furnace fans used in gas and oil furnaces, DOE
proposes that steady-state conditions are attained as indicated by a
temperature variation in three successive readings, taken 15 minutes
apart, of not more than:
1.5 [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 proposes 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. DOE requests comments on whether the
proposed stabilization criteria are reasonably achievable, and whether
the stabilization criteria for the AFUE test would be sufficient to
assure that the entire furnace has thermally stabilized to a point such
that the measured air temperature rise would no longer significantly
change. (See Issue 10 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in
section V.B of this SNOPR.)
AHRI's approach does not include provisions to account for
potential inlet or outlet airflow temperature gradients. DOE is
concerned that temperature gradients are likely to be present, which
would compromise the accuracy and repeatability of the temperature rise
measurement results. DOE proposes to specify the use of a mixer, as
depicted in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37-2005, which references ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 41.1-1986 (RA 2001), to minimize outlet flow temperature
gradients if the temperature difference between any two thermocouples
of the outlet air temperature grid is greater than 1.5 [deg]F. DOE has
not had the opportunity to evaluate the potential inaccuracies
associated with allowing larger temperature gradients, and instead
bases this selection on its use as the maximum allowable temperature
difference threshold in ASHRAE 210/240 for the ``C'' and ``D'' tests
for CAC products. These tests use temperature rise and airflow
measurement to determine cooling capacity. The proposed furnace fan
test method uses the inverse of the relationship for these factors to
determine airflow based on measured temperature rise and input heat
capacity. Hence, the implications for temperature gradients to result
in measurement errors are equivalent. DOE requests comment on whether
the effect on static pressure of adding a mixer would prevent the test
setup from achieving the ESP levels specified in the DOE test procedure
for residential furnaces or the lower ESP levels specified in this
notice for measuring fan performance in the lowest rated airflow
setting. DOE also seeks comment on whether additional thermocouples are
needed to measure the inlet air temperature. (See Issue 11 under
``Issues
[[Page 19618]]
on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of this SNOPR.)
C. Definitions
DOE proposes to adopt all definitions in section 3 of ASHRAE 103,
which are already codified in section 2 of Appendix N to Subpart B of
Part 430. DOE also proposes to include the additional and modified
definitions listed below.
Active mode means the condition in which the product in
which the furnace fan is integrated is connected to a power source and
circulating air through ductwork.
Airflow-control settings are programmed or wired control
system configurations that control a fan to achieve discrete, differing
ranges of airflow, often designated for performing a specific HVAC
function (e.g., cooling, heating, or constant circulation), without
manual adjustment other than interaction with a user-operable control
such as a thermostat that meets the manufacturer specifications for
installed use found in the product literature shipped with the unit.
Default airflow-control settings are the airflow-control
settings specified for installed use by the manufacturer in the product
literature shipped with the product in which the furnace fan is
integrated. In instances where a manufacturer specifies multiple
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 DOE test procedure.
External static pressure means the difference between
static pressures measured in the outlet duct and return air opening (or
return air duct when used for testing) of the product in which the
furnace fan is integrated.
Furnace fan is an electrically-powered device used in a
consumer product for the purpose of circulating air through ductwork.
Modular blower means a product which only uses single-
phase electric current, and which:
(a) Is designed to be the principal air circulation source for the
living space of a residence;
(b) Is not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace or
central air conditioner; and
(c) Is designed to be paired with HVAC products that have a heat
input rate of less than 225,000 Btu per hour and/or cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu per hour.
Off mode means the condition in which the product in which
the furnace fan is integrated is either not connected to the power
source or connected to the power source but not energized.
Standby mode means the condition in which the product in
which the furnace fan is integrated is connected to the power source
and the furnace fan is not circulating air.
D. Sampling Plans
DOE provides sampling plans for all covered products. The purpose
of a sampling plan is to provide statistically valid representations of
energy consumption or energy efficiency for each covered product by
capturing the variability inherent in the manufacturing and testing
process. These sampling plans apply to all aspects of the EPCA program
for consumer products, including public representations, labeling, and
compliance with energy conservation standards. 10 CFR 429.11. In the
NOPR, DOE proposed that the existing sampling plans used for furnaces
be adopted and applied to measures of energy consumption for furnace
fans. 77 FR at 28691 (May 15, 2012).
AHRI and manufacturers commented that the 97.5 percent confidence
limit required by the furnace sampling plan is too stringent. See 10
CFR 429.18(a). Morrison and Allied Air commented on the difficulty of
obtaining accurate, precise airflow measurements. According to
Morrison, the uncertainty allowable per AMCA 210-07 is much greater
than what is permissible in the furnaces sampling plan. (Morrison,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 219; Allied Air, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 218.) Unico stated that it would have a
problem with meeting anything close to 97.5 percent confidence. (Unico,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 224.) AHRI stated that the
confidence limits used for the AFUE measurement are inappropriate for
the proposed electrical measurements. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript,
No. 23 at p. 226.) Ingersoll Rand stated that the 97.5 percent
confidence limit is not going to work and would require at least three
sample units for every model to meet the requirement. (Ingersoll Rand,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 230.) Carrier explained that
the components of the furnace fan (i.e. electric motors, blower wheels
and blower housings) are more analogous to an air conditioner or
refrigerator than to the combustion process of a fuel-fired furnace.
According to Carrier, AFUE does not consider the electrical efficiency
of the furnace fan components. Carrier recommends the certification and
enforcement level for furnaces fans to be 90%, which is consistent with
the confidence limit for CAC. (Carrier, No. 10 at p. 4.) Allied Air,
Goodman, Rheem, Ingersoll Rand, Lennox, and Morrison agreed that a
sampling plan requiring a 90 percent confidence limit would be more
appropriate. (Allied Air, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 225;
Goodman, No. 17 at p. 6; Rheem, No. 25 at p. 11; Ingersoll Rand, No. 14
at p. 2; Lennox, No. 12 at p. 5; Morrison, No. 21 at p. 8.)
Efficiency advocates also support a less stringent confidence
interval. Adjuvant commented that it strives for a 90 percent
confidence interval in its work with HVAC products, which Adjuvant
finds to be an appropriate level. Adjuvant added that it rarely uses 95
percent and would not push for anything higher than 90. (Adjuvant,
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23 at p. 229.) NPCC and NEEA commented
that a 97.5 percent confidence limit is unrealistically stringent and
might cause enforcement testing issues that are not helpful in
certifying efficiency levels. NPCC and NEEA added that air flow and
external static pressure measurements are prone to larger error bands
than measurements such as power levels or temperatures, and are likely
to cause real problems for manufacturers trying to certify to the 97.5
percent confidence limit. NPCC and NEEA recommended using the same
confidence limits as those used for heat pump and air conditioning
systems, which are subject to some of the same measurement error bands
as air handlers. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 22 at p. 7.) AHRI stated that
confidence limits historically have been set without supporting data
and suggested that DOE do a rigorous analysis to determine an
appropriate confidence limit. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 23
at p. 225.)
DOE agrees with interested parties that the furnace fan electrical
input power measurements and external static pressure measurements that
would be required by the test procedure proposed herein are different
and inherently more variable than the measurements required for AFUE.
DOE proposes to adopt a sampling plan that requires any represented
value of FER to be greater or equal to the mean of the sample or the
upper 90 percent (one-tailed) confidence limit divided by 1.05, as
specified in the sampling plan for CAC/HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE
will continue to analyze the available test data to evaluate the
proposed sampling plan parameters. DOE requests comments, including
detailed data, regarding test result variance that it can use to assess
the appropriateness of the sampling plan proposed herein. (See
[[Page 19619]]
Issue 12 under ``Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section V.B of
this SNOPR.)
E. Standby Mode and Off Mode Energy Consumption
EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, Public Law 110-140 (EISA), requires that any final rule for a new
or amended energy conservation standard adopted after July 1, 2010,
must address standby mode and off mode energy use pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Thus, the statute implicitly directs
DOE, when developing test procedures to support new energy conservation
standards, to account for standby mode and off mode energy consumption.
EISA also requires that such energy consumption be integrated into the
overall energy efficiency, energy consumption, or other energy
descriptor, unless the current test procedure already accounts for
standby mode and off mode energy use. If an integrated test procedure
is technically infeasible, DOE must prescribe a separate standby mode
and off mode test procedure for the covered product, if technically
feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(2)(A)) Accordingly, DOE must address the
standby mode and off mode energy use of furnace fans in this test
procedure. However, DOE has already fully incorporated standby mode and
off mode energy use in the test procedures (or proposed test
procedures) for all of the products to which this test procedure
rulemaking would be applicable.
Table III.1 summarizes the test procedure rulemaking vehicles
through which DOE addresses standby mode and off mode energy
consumption for the various types of products which circulate air
through ductwork.
Table III.1--Rulemaking Activities Addressing Furnace Fan Standby Mode
and Off Mode Energy Consumption
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE rulemaking
HVAC products Status activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas Furnaces........... Addressed in Codified
Oil-fired Furnaces..... separate Furnaces Test
Electric Furnaces...... rulemaking. Procedure October
20, 2010 final
rule (75 FR
64621) (10 CFR
part 430, subpart
B, appendix N,
section 8.0).
September
13, 2011 NOPR (76
FR 56339).
Modular Blowers........ Addressed in June 2,
Weatherized Gas Furnace separate 2010 NOPR (75 FR
rulemaking. 31224).
April 1,
2011 SNOPR (76 FR
18105).
October
24, 2011 SNOPR
(76 FR 65616).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE prescribed the measurement of standby mode and off mode energy
use for non-weatherized gas furnaces, oil-fired furnaces, and electric
furnaces in the furnace test procedure, 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix N, section 8.0. DOE proposed coverage of standby mode and off
mode energy use for modular blowers and weatherized gas furnaces in a
June 2, 2010 NOPR. 75 FR 31224. In a September 13, 2011 NOPR, DOE
proposed amendments to its furnace test procedure related to standby
mode and off mode. 76 FR 56339. DOE subsequently published one SNOPR on
April 1, 2011, and another on October 24, 2011, regarding standby mode
and off mode test procedures for these products. 76 FR 18105; 76 FR
65616. DOE published a furnaces standby and off mode test procedure
final rule on December 31, 2012. 77 FR 76831. Furnace fans are
integrated in the electrical systems of the HVAC products in which they
are used and controlled by the main control board. Therefore, the
standby mode and off mode energy use associated with these furnace fans
would be measured by the established or proposed test procedures
associated with these products. There is no need for DOE to adopt
additional test procedure provisions for these modes in this
rulemaking.
F. Reference System Product Types
In the NOPR, DOE identified four installation types with unique
reference system ESP considerations:
Heating-only units;
Units with an internal evaporator coil;
Units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil; and
Manufactured home units.
DOE anticipated that some HVAC products may not be designed to
provide cooling. Specifically, DOE identified hydronic air handler
models that are not designed to be paired with an evaporator coil
(either factory-installed or separate). DOE proposed to specify a lower
reference system ESP for these products because they do not experience
the additional pressure drop of circulating air past an evaporator
coil.
Ingersoll Rand commented that it was not aware of any product that
would be categorized as a heating-only product. Ingersoll Rand added
that including this installation type could provide manufacturers with
a means of gaming the test procedure by modifying its furnaces to
eliminate factory-installed cooling capabilities, which would allow
such furnaces to be tested at the lower ESP specified for heating-only
units. For these reasons, Ingersoll Rand recommended that DOE eliminate
the heating-only designation. (Ingersoll Rand, Public Meeting
Transcript, No. 23 at p. 50.) NPCC and NEEA also suggested that DOE
eliminate the heating-only installation type. (NPCC/NEEA, No. 22 at p.
6)
DOE agrees with interested parties that the heating-only
installation type should be eliminated from consideration. The scope of
applicability of the test procedure proposed herein does not include
hydronic air handlers as discussed in section III.A. Consequently, DOE
proposes to eliminate the heating-only product designation as a result.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at OMB.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) for
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment and a final
regulatory flexibility analysis
[[Page 19620]]
(FRFA) for any such rule that an agency adopts as a final rule, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process, 68 FR 7990. DOE's
procedures and policies may be viewed on the Office of the General
Counsel's Web site (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on
February 19, 2003, 68 FR 7990. DOE has tentatively concluded that the
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the provisions of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The factual basis for this certification is
as follows:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) considers an entity to be a
small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs fewer than
a threshold number of workers as specified in 13 CFR part 121. The
threshold values set forth in these regulations use size standards and
codes established by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) that are available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The threshold number for NAICS
classification for 333415, which applies to Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration
Equipment Manufacturing (this includes furnace fan manufacturers) is
750 employees.\8\ DOE reviewed AHRI's Directory of Certified Product
Performance for Residential Furnaces and Boilers (2009),\9\ the ENERGY
STAR Product Databases for Gas and Oil Furnaces (May 15, 2009),\10\ the
California Energy Commission's Appliance Database for Residential
Furnaces and Boilers,\11\ and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency's
Qualifying Furnace and Boiler List (April 2, 2009).\12\ From this
review, DOE identified 14 small businesses within the furnace fan
industry. DOE does not believe the test procedure amendments described
in this proposed rule would represent a substantial burden to any
manufacturer, including small manufacturers, as explained below. DOE
requests comments on its characterization of the furnace fan industry
in terms of the number of and impacts on small businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business
Size Standards (August 22, 2008) (Available at: https://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: https://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: https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=furnaces.pr_furnaces).
\11\ The California Energy Commission, Appliance Database for
Residential Furnaces and Boilers (2009) (Available at: https://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/QuickSearch.aspxh).
\12\ Consortium of Energy Efficiency, Qualifying Furnace and
Boiler List (April 2, 2009) (Available at: https://www.ceedirectory.org/ceedirectory/pages/cee/ceeDirectoryInfo.aspx).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposed rule would establish test procedures that would be
used for representations of energy use and to test compliance with new
energy conservation standards, which are being developed in a
concurrent rulemaking, for the products that are the subject of this
rulemaking. This notice proposes new test procedures for active mode
testing for all such products. The proposed rule would require a
modified version of the testing methods prescribed in a public
submission from AHRI (the trade organization that represents
manufacturers of furnace fans). The AHRI proposal recommends test
methods that are purposely aligned with the current DOE test procedure
for furnaces in order to minimize test burden. (AHRI, No. 26); Appendix
N of subpart B of 10 CFR part 430. As discussed above, this would not
represent a substantial burden to any furnace fan manufacturer, small
or large. According to AHRI, its proposed method would result in an 80
to 90 percent reduction in test burden compared to the test procedure
proposed by DOE in the NOPR. AHRI attributed this reduction primarily
to manufacturers not having to acquire or use any test equipment beyond
the equipment that is already used to conduct the test method specified
in the DOE furnace test procedure (i.e. the AFUE test setup). (AHRI,
No. 16 at p. 3.) Mortex, a small manufacturer, stated that measuring
airflow and electrical power input at a few more 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 proposed modifications to AHRI's
approach would require minimal, low-cost equipment beyond what is
currently used to perform the AFUE test. This additional equipment
would include additional thermocouples and potentially an air mixer.
Manufacturers commented that this equipment is already used by furnace
fan manufacturers because it is required by either ASHRAE 103 or ASHRAE
37, which are currently used to test the HVAC products considered in
this rulemaking. Therefore, DOE expects little or no additional cost as
the result of the new test procedure.
DOE also expects that the time and cost to conduct testing
according to the proposed test procedure will not be significantly
burdensome. During discussions with manufacturers, DOE received
feedback that the time to test a single unit according to the AHRI
method would be 30 to 60 percent less relative to using the procedure
DOE proposed in the NOPR. Goodman performed tests according to both
DOE's NOPR test procedure proposal and AHRI's suggested method and
found that testing time is reduced by almost 60 percent using AHRI's
method. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3.) Rheem also conducted tests according
to both procedures and stated that the time to test a single-stage
furnace was reduced from 4 hours to 45 minutes by using the AHRI
method. (Rheem, No. 25 at p. 4.) Assuming that the labor rate for a
given manufacturer would be the same regardless of test method, DOE
expects that the cost to conduct a test would also be reduced by 30 to
60 percent. DOE estimated that conducting a test according to its NOPR
proposed test procedure would cost a small manufacturer $2.30 per unit
shipped. This estimate is largely based on DOE's experience with third-
party test lab labor rates for fan testing, 77 FR at 28691 (May 15,
2012). A 30 percent reduction would yield a conservative cost estimate
of $1.61 per unit shipped to conduct a test according to AHRI's method.
DOE does not expect that its proposed modifications to the AHRI method
would result in additional costs to conduct a test. DOE finds that the
selling price for HVAC products that incorporate furnace fans ranges
from approximately $400 to $4,000. Therefore, the added cost of testing
per DOE's revised proposed test procedure would be less than one
percent of the manufacturer selling price (and lower than 0.1 percent
in some cases).
For these reasons, DOE certifies that the proposed rule, if
adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
[[Page 19621]]
regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will provide
its certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
There is currently no information collection requirement related to
the test procedure for furnace fans. In the event that DOE proposes an
energy conservation standard with which manufacturers must demonstrate
compliance, or otherwise proposes to require the collection of
information derived from the testing of furnace fans according to this
test procedure, DOE will seek OMB approval of such information
collection requirement.
Manufacturers of covered products must certify to DOE that their
products comply with any applicable energy conservation standard, 10
CFR 429.12. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their
products according to the applicable DOE test procedure, including any
amendments adopted for that test procedure. See 10 CFR 429.13.
DOE established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping
requirements for certain covered consumer products and commercial
equipment, 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping was subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
This requirement was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification was estimated to
average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
As stated above, in the event DOE proposes an energy conservation
standard for furnace fans with which manufacturers must demonstrate
compliance, DOE will seek OMB approval of the associated information
collection requirement. DOE will seek approval either through a
proposed amendment to the information collection requirement approved
under OMB control number 1910-1400 or as a separate proposed
information collection requirement.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
In this notice of proposed rulemaking, DOE proposes a new test
procedure for furnace fans. DOE has determined that this rule falls
into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, this rule proposes a test procedure without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will
not result in any environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is
covered by Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D,
which applies to any rulemaking that does not result in any
environmental impacts. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment
nor an environmental impact statement is required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations, 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has tentatively determined that it would not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6297(d)). No further action is required by Executive Order
13132.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. With regard to the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine
whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them.
DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the
extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards
of Executive Order 12988.
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. (Pub. L. 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531))
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process
[[Page 19622]]
to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and
requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely
input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820.
DOE's policy statement is also available at https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE examined today's proposed rule according to
UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains
neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in
the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
year. Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under UMRA.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed today's proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must provide a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
DOE has tentatively concluded that today's regulatory action, which
would prescribe the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency
of furnace fans, is not a significant energy action because the
proposed test procedure is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been
designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects on the
proposed rule.
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91), DOE must comply with all laws applicable to the former
Federal Energy Administration, including section 32 of the Federal
Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-275), as amended by the
Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-
70). (15 U.S.C. 788) Section 32 provides in relevant part that, where a
proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed rule incorporates testing methods contained in the DOE
test procedure for furnaces codified in Appendix N or subpart B of part
430 of the CFR (which incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
103, ``Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of
Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,'' and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
37-2005, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary
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. The Department has evaluated these standards and is unable
to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section
32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., that they were developed in a manner that
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will
consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition prior to
prescribing a final rule.
V. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this SNOPR.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact
[[Page 19623]]
you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a compact disk (CD), if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and are free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature
of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
one copy of the document marked confidential including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked non-confidential with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of
interested parties concerning the following issues:
1. Airflow Equation
DOE is concerned that using AFUE and QIN, as defined in
AHRI's proposal, would not result in accurate representations of
airflow at the proposed operating conditions because neither parameter
is measured at the proposed operating conditions. DOE proposes to use
steady state combustion efficiency and fuel energy input measured at
the proposed operating conditions instead of AFUE and QIN to
address this discrepancy and minimize the potential resulting
inaccuracies in calculated airflow. DOE recognizes that replacing AFUE
with steady state combustion efficiency would also require that jacket
losses and the usable heat generated by the motor also be included in
the calculation. Section III.B.1 includes a detailed discussion of this
issue and DOE's proposed modified version of the airflow calculation
equation. DOE requests comments on these modifications to the equation
proposed by AHRI to calculate airflow.
DOE recognizes that the use of the 1.08 conversion factor assumes
that the airflow has standard air properties (i.e. standard air density
and specific heat). DOE anticipates that the properties of the airflow
under test may deviate from these values at actual test conditions.
Therefore, DOE also requests comment on whether the conversion factor
should be adjusted by the barometric pressure at test conditions.
2. Using Temperature Rise in the Rated Heating Airflow-Control Setting
To Calculate Maximum Airflow
DOE proposes to modify the AHRI recommended method to specify that
maximum airflow be calculated based on a temperature rise measurement
taken while operating the furnace in the rated heating airflow-control
setting and firing the burner at the heat input capacity associated
with that airflow-control setting. DOE recognizes that, compared to
AHRI's suggested method, more complex calculations are required to
determine the airflow in the maximum airflow-control setting based on a
temperature rise measurement in the heating airflow-control setting.
Section III.B.1 includes a detailed discussion of DOE's reasoning,
methodology, and equations for the modified approach to calculating
airflow in the maximum airflow control setting. DOE requests comments
on the proposed modified method for calculating airflow in the maximum
airflow-control setting. DOE also requests comment on whether the
[[Page 19624]]
proposed adjustment to this calculation, which accounts for the
elevated temperature in the ductwork, should be incorporated to achieve
greater accuracy in determination of the maximum airflow rate.
Specifically, DOE requests comments on how ESP, furnace fan electrical
input power, and airflow measurements are impacted by temperature rise.
DOE also seeks comment on how those relationships would impact the
accuracy of the calculated value of QMax and, ultimately, FER.
3. Using the Maximum Heat Setting to Measure Temperature Rise
DOE recognizes that a more accurate measurement of temperature rise
could be made at higher throughput temperatures because the allowable
error in temperature measurements would represent a lower percentage of
the overall temperature rise. DOE requests comment on whether the
maximum airflow should be calculated based on the temperature rise
measured while operating the furnace fan in the maximum default heat
airflow-control setting and at maximum heat input capacity to minimize
temperature measurement error. Section III.B.1 includes a detailed
discussion of this issue.
4. Elevation Impacts
DOE is concerned that at higher elevations the temperature rise
would be high due to reduced air mass flow, resulting in higher
calculated airflow. DOE requests comments on the magnitude of potential
elevation impacts on calculated airflow and FER values. DOE also
requests comments on whether specifications, such as a maximum test
elevation or elevation adjustment factors, should be used to avoid
circumvention associated with conducting this test at high elevation.
5. Outlet Duct Restriction Specifications
AHRI's suggested test method specifies that the reference system
ESP be achieved by ``symmetrically restricting the outlet of the test
duct.'' (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 19.) The AHRI test method does not provide
details on the method or equipment to be used to meet this requirement.
DOE is aware that independent test labs typically apply cardboard
ducting or tape to the corners of the outlet until the desired ESP is
achieved. DOE requests comments on whether more specific methods for
restricting the outlet duct should be included and what these specific
duct restriction requirements should be. Section III.B.2 includes a
detailed discussion of this issue.
6. Optional Return Air Duct
According to AHRI's suggested test method, use of an return air
duct in the test setup is optional. (AHRI, No. 26 at p. 20.) DOE
proposes to also allow for the optional use of a return air duct;
however, DOE is concerned that ESP may differ when measured with a
return air duct compared to when measured without a return air duct.
DOE requests comments on the relative ESP measurements and FER values
that result when not using an air return duct compared to when an air
return duct is used, and whether the test procedure should explicitly
require use of a return air duct. Section III.B.2 includes a detailed
discussion of this issue.
7. ASHRAE 37-2005 External Static Pressure Measurement Provisions
AHRI's suggested test method specifies that ESP measurements be
made as close as possible to the air supply and return openings of the
furnace and in all cases, between the furnace openings and any
restrictions or elbows in the test plenums or ducts. (AHRI, No. 26 at
p. 20.) DOE agrees with these specifications, but proposes to
incorporate by reference the ASHRAE 37 provisions for measuring ESP
(sections 6.4 and 6.5), which are consistent with AHRI's suggested
specifications but are more detailed. DOE anticipates that these more
detailed specifications would minimize variations in test setups and,
in turn, improve repeatability. DOE requests comments on its proposed
provisions for measuring ESP, which are adopted from ASHRAE 37-2005.
Section III.B.2 includes details of DOE's proposal for measuring
external static pressure.
Temperature Measurement Accuracy Requirement
AHRI's recommended method adopts ASHRAE 103-1993 provisions that
specify that temperature measurements shall have an error no greater
than 2[emsp14][deg]F. DOE proposes to specify that
temperature measurements have an error no greater than 0.5[emsp14][deg]F to minimize error in the resulting FER values.
DOE requests comment on whether 0.5[emsp14][deg]F is
reasonably achievable. Section III.B.3 includes a more detailed
discussion of this issue.
9. Minimum Temperature Rise
AHRI's method does not include a minimum temperature rise
requirement. DOE is concerned that the allowable error in temperature
measurements coupled with a low temperature rise could result in
inaccurate test results. For this reason, DOE also proposes to require
a minimum temperature rise of 18[emsp14][deg]F, as specified in ASHRAE
37-2005. DOE requests comments on whether a minimum temperature rise
should be required, and if so, what an appropriate value for the
minimum temperature rise would be. Section III.B.3 includes a detailed
discussion of this issue.
10. Steady-State Stabilization Criteria
AHRI's recommended method adopts the stabilization criteria of the
DOE test procedure for residential furnaces. 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix N, section 7.0 DOE is concerned that the temperature
variations specified in the residential furnace stabilization criteria
are not stringent enough to maximize accuracy and repeatability for
evaluating furnace fan performance according to the proposed test
procedure. In section III.B.3 DOE proposes modified stabilization
criteria to address this concern.. DOE requests comments on whether the
proposed stabilization criteria are reasonably achievable, and whether
the stabilization criteria for the AFUE test would be sufficient to
assure that the entire furnace has thermally stabilized to a point such
that the measured air temperature rise would no longer significantly
change.
11. Inlet and Outlet Airflow Temperature Gradients
AHRI's approach does not include provisions to account for
potential inlet or outlet airflow temperature gradients. DOE is
concerned that temperature gradients are likely to be present, which
would compromise the accuracy and repeatability of the temperature rise
measurement results. DOE proposes to specify the use of a mixer, as
depicted in Figure 10 of ASHRAE 37-2005, which references ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 41.1-1986 (RA 2001), to minimize outlet flow temperature
gradients if the temperature difference between any two thermocouples
of the outlet air temperature grid is greater than 1.5[emsp14][deg]F.
DOE requests comments on the proposed requirements for use of an air
mixer. DOE also requests comment on whether the static pressure drop of
adding a mixer would prevent the test setup from achieving the ESP
levels specified in the DOE test procedure for furnaces or the lower
ESP levels specified in this notice for measuring fan performance in
the lowest rated airflow setting. DOE also seeks comment on whether
additional thermocouples are needed for the inlet. Section III.B.3
includes a detailed discussion of this issue.
[[Page 19625]]
12. Sampling Plan Criteria
DOE agrees with interested parties that the furnace fan electrical
input power measurements and external static pressure measurements that
would be required by the test procedure proposed herein are different
and inherently more variable than the measurements required for AFUE.
DOE proposes to adopt a sampling plan that requires any represented
value of FER to be greater or equal to the mean of the sample or the
upper 90 percent (one-tailed) confidence limit divided by 1.05, as
specified in the sampling plan for CAC/HP products. 10 CFR 429.16 DOE
requests comments that include detailed data regarding test result
variance that it can use to assess the appropriateness of the sampling
plan proposed herein.
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's notice
of proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household
appliances, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 430
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2013.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy .
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts
429 and 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
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 heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) product using a furnace fan, a sample of sufficient
size shall be randomly selected and tested to ensure that any
represented value of fan energy rating (FER), rounded to the nearest
integer, shall be greater than or equal to the higher of:
(i) The mean of the sample, where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.024
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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.025
And X is the sample mean; s is the sample standard deviation; n is
the number of samples; and t0.90 is the t statistic for a
90% one-tailed confidence interval with n-1 degrees of freedom (from
Appendix A of this subpart).
(b) Certification reports. [Reserved]
PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
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 430.3 is amended by:
0
a. Removing, in paragraph (f)(3) ``appendix M to subpart B'' and adding
in its place ``appendix M and appendix AA to subpart B'';
0
b. Removing, in paragraph (f)(4), ``Reaffirmed 2001'' and adding in its
place ``Reaffirmed 2006''; and removing ``appendix E and appendix M to
subpart B'' and adding in its place ``appendices E, M, and AA to
subpart B'';
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (f)(10) as (f)(11); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (f)(10);
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 430.3 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(10) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007, (``ASHRAE 103-2007''), Methods
of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential
Central Furnaces and Boilers, except for sections 7.2.2.5, 8.6.1.1,
9.1.2.2, 9.5.1.1, 9.5.1.2.1, 9.5.1.2.2, 9.5.2.1, 9.7.1, 11.2.12,
11.3.12, 11.4.12, 11.5.12 and appendices B and C, ASHRAE approved June
27, 2007, ANSI approved March 25, 2008, IBR approved for appendix AA to
subpart B.
* * * * *
0
5. 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
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
6. Appendix AA to subpart B of part 430 is added to read as follows:
Appendix AA to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring
the Energy Consumption of Furnace Fans
Note: Any representation made after September 30, 2013 for
energy consumption of furnace fans must be based upon results
generated under this test procedure. Upon the compliance date(s) of
any energy conservation standard(s) for furnace fans, use of the
applicable provisions of this test procedure to demonstrate
compliance with the energy conservation standard will also be
required.
1. Scope. This appendix covers the test requirements used to
measure the energy consumption of a furnace fan.
2. Definitions. Definitions include the definitions as specified
in section 3 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see
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
[[Page 19626]]
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''.
2.5. ASHRAE Standard 37-2005 means the test standard published
in 2005 by ASHRAE entitled ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment''.
2.6. Default airflow-control settings are the airflow-control
settings specified for installed-use by the manufacturer. For the
purposes of this appendix, manufacturer specifications for
installed-use are those specifications provided for typical consumer
installations in the product literature shipped with the product in
which the furnace fan is installed. In instances where a
manufacturer specifies multiple airflow-control settings for a given
function to account for varying installation scenarios, the highest
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 is an electrically-powered device used in a
consumer product for the purpose of circulating air through
ductwork.
2.9. Modular blower means a product which only uses single-phase
electric current, and which:
(a) Is designed to be the principal air circulation source for
the living space of a residence;
(b) Is not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace or
central air conditioner; and
(c) Is designed to be paired with HVAC products that have a heat
input rate of less than 225,000 Btu per hour or cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu per hour.
2.10. Off mode means the condition in which the product in which
the furnace fan is integrated is either not connected to the power
source or connected to the power source but not energized.
2.11. Seasonal off switch means a switch on the product in which
the furnace fan is integrated that, when activated, results in a
measurable change in energy consumption between the standby and off
modes.
2.12. Standby mode means the condition in which the product in
which the furnace fan is integrated is connected to the power source
and the furnace fan is not circulating air.
2.13. Thermal stack damper means a type of stack damper that
opens only during the direct conversion of thermal energy of the
stack gases.
3. Classifications. Classifications are as specified in section
4 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see 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,
except section 6.2, of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec. 430.3); and as specified in section 5.1 of this appendix.
5.1. Temperature. Temperature measuring instruments shall meet
the provisions specified in section 5.1 of ASHRAE 37-2005
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) and shall be accurate
to within 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.
5.1.1. Outlet Air Temperature Thermocouple Grid. Outlet air
temperature shall be measured as described in section 8.2.1.5.5 of
ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) and
illustrated in Figure 2 of ASHRAE 103-2007. If the temperature range
of the nine individual measurements exceeds 1.5 [deg]F, an air mixer
as described in section 6 of ASHRAE 41.1-1986 (RA 2006)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) shall be used to reduce
the temperature range to within 1.5 [deg]F. Thermocouples shall be
placed downstream of pressure taps used for external static pressure
measurement.
6. Apparatus. The apparatus used in conjunction with the furnace
during the testing shall be as specified in section 7 of ASHRAE 103-
2007 (incorporated by reference, see 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. An apparatus for measuring external
static pressure as specified in sections 6.4 and 6.5 of ASHRAE 37-
2005 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3) shall be
integrated in the plenum and test duct. External static pressure
measuring instruments shall be placed between the furnace openings
and any restrictions or elbows in the test plenums or ducts. For
tests conducted using a return air duct, the external static
pressure shall be directly measured as a differential pressure as
depicted in Figure 8 of ASHRAE 37-2005 rather than determined by
separately measuring inlet and outlet static pressure and
subtracting the results. For tests conducted without a return air
duct, the external static pressure shall be directly measured as the
differential pressure between the duct static pressure and the
ambient static pressure as depicted in Figure 7a of ASHRAE 37-2005.
6.5. Air Filters. Air filters shall be removed.
6.6. Electrical Measurement. Only electrical input power to the
furnace fan shall be measured for the purposes of this appendix.
Electrical input power to all other electricity-consuming components
of the product in which the furnace fan is integrated shall not be
included in the electrical input power measurements used in the FER
calculation. If the procedures of this appendix are being conducted
at the same time as another test that requires metering of
components other than the furnace fan, the electrical input power to
the furnace fan shall be sub-metered.
7. Test Conditions. The testing conditions shall be as specified
in section 8, except for section 8.6.1.1, of ASHRAE 103-2007
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 430.3); and as specified in
section 7.1 of this appendix.
7.1. Measurement of Jacket Surface Temperature. The jacket of
the furnace or boiler shall be subdivided into 6-inch squares when
practical, and otherwise into 36-square-inch regions comprising 4
in. 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 [deg]F for temperature up to 100 [deg]F above room
temperature and less than 20 [deg]F for temperature more than 100
[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.
[[Page 19627]]
The cabinet surface temperatures around the blower section do not
need to be measured (see figure 3-E of ASHRAE 103-2007.)
8. Test Procedure. Testing and measurements shall be as
specified in section 9 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by
reference, see 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 a temperature variation in three
successive readings, taken 15 minutes apart, of not more than
(a) 1.5 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces
equipped with draft diverters;
(b) 2.5 [deg]F in the stack gas temperature for furnaces
equipped with either draft hoods, direct exhaust, or direct vent
systems; and
(c) 0.5 [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 a temperature
variation of not more than 1 [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 a
temperature variation of not more than 1 [deg]F in the outlet air
temperature in four successive temperature readings taken 15 minutes
apart.
8.6. Fan Energy Rating (FER) Test.
8.6.1. Initial FER test conditions and maximum airflow-control
setting measurements. The main burner or electric heating elements
shall be turned off. The furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to
the maximum airflow-control setting. The external static pressure
shall be adjusted to the value shown in Table VI.1 by symmetrically
restricting the outlet of the test duct. Maintain these settings
until steady-state conditions are attained as specified in section
8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix. Measure and record furnace fan
electrical input power (EMax) and external static
pressure (ESPMax).
Table VI.1--Required Minimum External Static Pressure in the Maximum
Airflow-Control Setting by Installation Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP
Installation type (in.w.c.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units with an internal, factory-installed evaporator coil.. 0.50
Units designed to be paired with an evaporator coil, but 0.65
without one installed.....................................
Manufactured home.......................................... 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the specified ESP has been achieved, the same outlet duct
restrictions shall be used for the remainder of the furnace fan
test.
8.6.2. Constant circulation airflow-control setting
measurements. The furnace fan controls shall be adjusted to the
default constant circulation airflow-control setting. If the
manufacturer does not specify a constant circulation airflow-control
setting, the lowest airflow-control setting shall be used. Maintain
these settings until steady-state conditions are attained as
specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of this appendix. Measure and
record furnace fan electrical input power (ECirc) and
external static pressure (ESPCirc).
8.6.3. Heating airflow-control setting measurements. For single-
stage gas and oil furnaces, the burner shall be fired at the maximum
heat input rate. Burner adjustments shall be made as specified by
section 8.4.1 of ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 430.3). For single-stage electric furnaces, the electric
heating elements shall be energized at the maximum heat input rate.
For multi-stage and modulating furnaces the reduced heat input rate
settings shall be used. After the burner is activated and adjusted
or the electric heating elements are energized, the furnace fan
controls shall be adjusted to operate the fan in the default heat
airflow-control setting. Maintain these settings until steady-state
conditions are attained as specified in section 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5 of
this appendix. Measure and record furnace fan electrical input power
(EHeat), external static pressure (ESPHeat),
flue or stack carbon dioxide concentration (XCO2,a), flue
or stack gas temperature (Ta,SS,X), and temperature rise
([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 operating point (or
minimum airflow-control setting operating point if a default
constant-circulation airflow-control setting is not specified), in
watts
EHeat = furnace fan electrical consumption in the default
heat airflow-control setting for single-stage heating products or
the default low-heat setting for multi-stage heating products, in
watts
EMax = furnace fan electrical consumption in the maximum
airflow-control setting, in watts
ESPi = external static pressure, in inches water column, at time of
the electrical power measurement in airflow-control setting i, where
i can be ``Circ'' to represent constant-circulation (or minimum
airflow) mode, ``Heat'' to represent heating mode, or ``Max'' to
represent cooling (or maximum airflow) mode.
FER= fan energy rating, in watts/1000 cfm
HH = annual furnace fan heating operating hours
HCR = heating capacity ratio (reduced heat input capacity divided by
maximum input heat capacity)
kref = physical descriptor characterizing the reference
system
[Delta]Ti = air throughput temperature rise in setting i,
in [deg]F
QMax = airflow at maximum airflow-control setting at, in
cubic feet per minute (CFM)
10. Calculation of derived results from test measurements for a
single unit. Calculations shall be as specified in section 11 of
ASHRAE 103-2007 (incorporated by reference, see 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] TP02AP13.026
Where:
[[Page 19628]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.027
The estimated national average operating hours presented in
Table VI.2 shall be used to calculate FER.
Table VI.2--Estimated National Average Operating Hour Values for Calculating FER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-
Operating mode Variable stage Multi-stage or modulating
(hours) (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heating................................. HH 830 830/HCR
Cooling................................. CH 640 640
Constant Circulation.................... CCH 400 400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP13.028
[FR Doc. 2013-07327 Filed 4-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
