```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 123 (Monday, June 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37549-37569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14556]

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 37549]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket Number EERE-2011-BT-STD-0011]
RIN 1904-AC06

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Residential Furnaces and Residential Central Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
residential furnaces and residential central air conditioners and heat 
pumps. EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to 
determine whether more-stringent, amended standards for these products 
would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
save a significant amount of energy. In this notice, DOE proposes 
energy conservation standards for residential furnaces and for 
residential central air conditioners and heat pumps identical to those 
set forth in a direct final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and determines that such 
comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final 
rule, DOE will publish a notice withdrawing the direct final rule and 
will proceed with this proposed rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
proposed standards no later than October 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: See section III, ``Public Participation,'' for details. If 
DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for 
additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of 
any public meeting in the Federal Register.
    Any comments submitted must identify the proposed rule for Energy 
Conservation Standards for Residential Furnaces, Central Air 
Conditioners, and Heat Pumps, and provide the docket number EERE-2011-
BT-STD-0011 and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AC06. 
Comments may be submitted using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: ResFurnaceAC-2011-Std-0011@ee.doe.gov. Include Docket 
Numbers EERE-2008-BT-STD-0006 and EE-2009-BT-STD-0022 and/or RIN number 
1904-AC06 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 
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 will be accepted. For detailed instructions on 
submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking 
process, see section III of this document (Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework 
documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and 
other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are 
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    A link to the docket Web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR+PS;rpp=50;so=DESC;sb=postedDate;po=0;D=E
ERE-2011-BT-STD-0011. The http://www.regulations.gov Web page contains 
simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public 
comments, in the docket. See section III for further information on how 
to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments, 
or view hard copies of the docket in the Resource Room, contact Ms. 
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by e-mail: 
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mohammed Khan (furnaces) or Mr. 
Wesley Anderson (central air conditioners and heat pumps), U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892 or (202) 586-7335. 
E-mail: Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov or Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov.
    Mr. Eric Stas or Ms. Jennifer Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507 or (202) 287-6111. 
E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov or Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Authority
II. Proposed Standards
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential 
Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency
    2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential 
Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off 
Mode Power
    3. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy 
Efficiency
    4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for 
Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby 
Mode and Off Mode Power
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction and Authority

    Title III, Part B 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) 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other 
Than Automobiles,\1\ a program covering most major household appliances 
(collectively referred to as ``covered products''), which includes the 
types of residential central air conditioners and heat pumps and 
furnaces that are the subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3) 
and (5)) EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards for central air 
conditioners and heat pumps and directed DOE to conduct two cycles of 
rulemakings to determine whether to amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(d)(1)-(3)) The statute also prescribed standards for furnaces,

[[Page 37550]]

except for ``small'' furnaces (i.e., those units with an input capacity 
less than 45,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h)), for which 
EPCA directed DOE to prescribe standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(1)-(2)) 
Finally, EPCA directed DOE to conduct rulemakings to determine whether 
to amend the standards for furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(A)-(C)) This 
rulemaking represents the second round of amendments to both the 
central air conditioner/heat pump and the furnaces standards, under the 
authority of 42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)(B) and (f)(4)(C), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that this rulemaking is one of the required agency 
actions in two court orders. First, pursuant to the consolidated 
Consent Decree in State of New York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05 Civ. 
7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. v. Bodman, et 
al., 05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required to complete a final rule for 
amended energy conservation standards for residential central air 
conditioners and heat pumps that must be sent to the Federal Register 
by June 30, 2011. Second, pursuant to the Voluntary Remand in State of 
New York, et al. v. Department of Energy, et al., 08-0311-ag(L); 08-
0312-ag(con), DOE agreed to complete a final rule to consider 
amendments to the energy conservation standards for residential 
furnaces which it anticipated would be sent to the Federal Register by 
May 1, 2011.
    DOE further notes that under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must 
periodically review its already established energy conservation 
standards for a covered product. Under this requirement, the next 
review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six 
years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a 
standard for a covered product.
    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 
L. 110-140) amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 
issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to as a ``direct final rule'') 
establishing an energy conservation standard on receipt of a statement 
submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers 
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined 
by the Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an 
energy or water conservation standard that are in accordance with the 
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). A notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 
that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must be published 
simultaneously with the final rule, and DOE must provide a public 
comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4). Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final 
rule, if one or more adverse comments or an alternative joint 
recommendation are received relating to the direct final rule, the 
Secretary must determine whether the comments or alternative 
recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal under 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o) or other applicable law. If the Secretary makes such a 
determination, DOE must withdraw the direct final rule and proceed with 
the simultaneously-published NOPR. DOE must publish in the Federal 
Register the reason why the direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
    On January 15, 2010, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
Institute (AHRI), American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 
(ACEEE), Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project (ASAP), National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and 
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) submitted a joint 
comment \2\ to DOE's residential furnaces and central air conditioners/
heat pumps rulemakings recommending adoption of a package of minimum 
energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners, 
heat pumps, and furnaces, as well as associated compliance dates for 
such standards, which represents a negotiated agreement among a variety 
of interested stakeholders including manufacturers and environmental 
and efficiency advocates. More specifically, the original agreement was 
completed on October 13, 2009, and had 15 signatories, including AHRI, 
ACEEE, ASE, NRDC, ASAP, NEEP, Northwest Power and Conservation Council 
(NPCC), California Energy Commission (CEC), Bard Manufacturing Company 
Inc., Carrier Residential and Light Commercial Systems, Goodman Global 
Inc., Lennox Residential, Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, 
National Comfort Products, and Trane Residential. The consensus 
agreement signatories recommended specific energy conservation 
standards for residential furnaces and central air conditioners and 
heat pumps that they believed would satisfy the EPCA requirements in 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ DOE Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-STD-0022, Comment 1.3.001; DOE 
Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-STD-0006, Comment 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has considered the recommended energy conservation standards 
and believes that they meet the EPCA requirements for issuance of a 
direct final rule. As a result, DOE published a direct final rule 
establishing energy conservation standards for residential furnaces, 
central air conditioners, and heat pumps elsewhere in today's Federal 
Register. If DOE receives adverse comments that may provide a 
reasonable basis for withdrawal and withdraws the direct final rule, 
DOE will consider those comments and any other comments received in 
determining how to proceed with today's proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. That document includes 
additional discussion of the EPCA requirements for promulgation of 
energy conservation standards; the current standards for residential 
furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps; the history of the 
standards rulemakings establishing such standards; and information on 
the test procedures used to measure the energy efficiency of 
residential furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps. The 
document also contains an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted 
in support of this rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting 
those analyses, and the analytical results.

II. Proposed Standards

    When considering proposed standards, the new or amended energy 
conservation standard that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of 
covered product shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In 
determining whether a standard is economically justified, DOE must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens to 
the greatest extent practicable, in light of the seven statutory 
factors set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    DOE considered the impacts of standards at each trial standard 
level (TSL), beginning with the maximum technologically feasible (max-
tech) level, to determine whether that level was economically 
justified. Where the max-tech level was not economically justified, DOE 
then considered the next most efficient level and undertook the same 
evaluation until it reached the highest efficiency level that is both 
technologically feasible and

[[Page 37551]]

economically justified and saves a significant amount of energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, DOE has included tables that present a summary of the results 
of DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers, such as low-income 
households and seniors, who may be disproportionately affected by an 
amended national standard. Section V.B.1 of the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register presents the estimated 
impacts of each TSL for these subgroups.

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Furnace, 
Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency

    Table II.1 through Table II.5 present summaries of the quantitative 
impacts estimated for each TSL for residential furnace, central air 
conditioner, and heat pump energy efficiency. The efficiency levels 
contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct final 
rule.

                             Table II.1--Summary of Results for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency TSLs: National Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                      TSL 1                  TSL 2                  TSL 3                  TSL 4                  TSL 5                  TSL 6                 TSL 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings (quads)..  0.18.................  2.32 to 2.91.........  2.97 to 3.84.........  3.20 to 4.22.........  3.89.................  5.91................  19.18.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate.................  0.76.................  10.61 to 11.56.......  13.35 to 15.29.......  14.73 to 17.55.......  15.69................  8.18................  (45.12).
7% discount rate.................  0.23.................  2.60 to 2.41.........  3.36 to 3.36.........  3.93 to 4.21.........  3.47.................  (2.56)..............  (44.98).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Cumulative Emissions Reduction
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)........  15.2.................  62.8 to 61.2.........  971.1 to 113.........  105 to 134...........  116..................  200.................  772.
NOX (thousand tons)..............  12.3.................  55.5 to 56.7.........  83.1 to 98.5.........  90.1 to 117..........  102..................  168.................  640.
Hg (tons)........................  0.022................  0.011 to (0.012).....  0.086 to 0.059.......  0.097 to 0.071.......  0.059................  0.270...............  1.160.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Value of Emissions Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (2009$ billion)*.............  0.065 to 1.013.......  0.320 to 5.49........  0.496 to 9.58........  0.530 to 11.03.......  0.596 to 9.90........  0.987 to 16.21......  3.93 to 65.09.
NOX--3% discount rate (2009$       3.4 to 35.3..........  17.9 to 188..........  26.4 to 322..........  28.5 to 380..........  32.3 to 332..........  52.2 to 536.........  203 to 2082.
 million).
NOX--7% discount rate (2009$       1.7 to 17.0..........  6.8 to 72.3..........  10.3 to 126..........  11.9 to 160..........  12.7 to 131..........  21.2 to 218.........  79.8 to 820.
 million).
Generation Capacity Reduction      0.397................  0.646 to 1.12........  3.61 to 3.53.........  3.81 to 3.69.........  3.56.................  10.5................  35.6.
 (GW)**.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Employment Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in Domestic Production     0.1 to (16.9)........  0.3 to (16.9)........  0.6 to (16.9)........  0.8 to (16.9)........  1 to (16.9)..........  1.1 to (16.9).......  1.2 to (16.9).
 Workers in 2016 (thousands).
Indirect Domestic Jobs             0.5..................  2.7..................  6.1..................  6.3..................  6.3..................  18.5................  81.4.
 (thousands)**.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
** Changes in 2045.

                           Table II.2--Summary of Results for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency TSLs: Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                      TSL 1                  TSL 2                  TSL 3                  TSL 4                  TSL 5                  TSL 6                 TSL 7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV (2009$      8 to 33..............  (324) to (498).......  (428) to (729).......  (478) to (900).......  (508) to (915).......  (680) to (1873).....  (1530) to (3820).
 million).
Industry NPV (% change)..........  0.4 to 0.1...........  (3.8) to (5.9).......  (5.0) to (8.6).......  (5.6) to (10.6)......  (6.0) to (10.8)......  (8.0) to (22.0).....  (18.0) to (45.0).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 37552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JN11.013

[[Page 37553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JN11.014

[[Page 37554]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JN11.015

[[Page 37555]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JN11.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27JN11.017

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    DOE first considered TSL 7, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 7 would save 19.18 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 7, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be -$44.98 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and -
$45.12 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 7 are 772 Mt of 
CO2, 640 thousand tons of NOX, and 1.160 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 7 ranges from $3.93 billion to $65.1 
billion. Total generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 
35.6 GW under TSL 7.
    At TSL 7, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of 
$198 for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and a cost 
(LCC increase) of $181 in the southern region; a savings of $585 for 
mobile home gas furnaces in the northern region and a savings of $391 
in the southern region; and a savings of $272 for oil-fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the average consumer 
LCC impact is a cost of $1,343 in the rest of country, a cost of $797 
in the hot-humid region, and a cost of $1,182 in the hot-dry region. 
For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the average LCC impact 
is a cost of $903 in the rest of country, a cost of $130 in the hot-
humid region, and a cost of $311 in the hot-dry region.

[[Page 37556]]

For split-system heat pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost of $604 
in the rest of country, a savings of $103 in the hot-humid region, and 
a savings of $477 in the hot-dry region. For single-package air 
conditioners, the average LCC impact is a cost of $492. For single-
package heat pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost of $363. For SDHV 
air conditioners, the average LCC impact is a cost of $294 in the rest 
of country, a cost of $25 in the hot-humid region, and a cost of $106 
in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 7, the median payback period for non-weatherized gas 
furnaces is 17.1 years in the northern region and 28.9 years in the 
southern region; 11.5 years for mobile home gas furnaces in the 
northern region and 13 years in the southern region; and 18.2 years for 
oil-fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the median payback 
period is 100 years in the rest of country, 47 years in the hot-humid 
region, and 71 years in the hot-dry region. For split-system air 
conditioners (blower-coil), the median payback period is 100 years in 
the rest of country, 21 years in the hot-humid region, and 31 years in 
the hot-dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the median payback 
period is 33 years in the rest of country, 13 years in the hot-humid 
region, and 9 years in the hot-dry region. For single-package air 
conditioners, the median payback period is 46 years. For single-package 
heat pumps, the median payback period is 21 years. For SDHV air 
conditioners, the median payback period is 75 years in the rest of 
country, 17 years in the hot-humid region, and 23 years in the hot-dry 
region.
    At TSL 7, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
41 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 
27 percent in the southern region; 46 percent for mobile home gas 
furnaces in the northern region and 45 percent in the southern region; 
and 48 percent for oil-fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit at TSL 7 is 1 percent in the rest 
of country, 10 percent in the hot-humid region, and 9 percent in the 
hot-dry region. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 3 percent in the 
rest of country, 29 percent in the hot-humid region, and 23 percent in 
the hot-dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 13 percent in the rest of 
country, 40 percent in the hot-humid region, and 49 percent in the hot-
dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 16 percent. For single-package 
heat pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 21 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 8 percent in the rest of country, 33 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 26 percent in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 7, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 59 
percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 72 
percent in the southern region; 46 percent for mobile home gas furnaces 
in the northern region and 51 percent in the southern region; and 51 
percent for oil-fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 99 percent in the rest of 
country, 90 percent in the hot-humid region, and 91 percent in the hot-
dry region. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 96 percent in the 
rest of country, 70 percent in the hot-humid region, and 76 percent in 
the hot-dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 87 percent in the rest of 
country, 60 percent in the hot-humid region, and 51 percent in the hot-
dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 84 percent. For single-package 
heat pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 79 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 92 percent in the rest of country, 67 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 74 percent in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 7, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$1,530 million to a decrease of $3,820 million. At TSL 7, DOE 
recognizes the risk of large negative impacts if manufacturers' 
expectations concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the 
high end of the range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 7 could 
result in a net loss of 45.0 percent in INPV to furnace, central air 
conditioner, and heat pump manufacturers.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 7 for furnace, 
central air conditioner, and heat pump energy efficiency, the benefits 
of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of consumers 
due to the large increases in product cost, and the capital conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very large 
reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the Secretary 
has concluded that TSL 7 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 6. TSL 6 would save 5.91 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be -$2.56 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, 
and $8.18 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 200 Mt of 
CO2, 168 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.270 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 6 ranges from $0.987 billion to $16.2 
billion. Total generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 
10.5 GW under TSL 6.
    At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of 
$323 for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and not 
applicable in the south, a savings of $585 for mobile home gas furnaces 
in the northern region and not applicable in the south, and a cost of 
$18 for oil-fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the average LCC 
impact is a cost of $26 in the rest of country, a cost of $303 in the 
hot-humid region, and a cost of $468 in the hot-dry region. For split-
system air conditioners (blower-coil), the average LCC impact is a cost 
of $30 in the rest of country, a savings of $177 in the hot-humid 
region, and a savings of $196 in the hot-dry region. For split-system 
heat pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost of $89 in the rest of 
country, a savings of $137 in the hot-humid region, and a savings of 
$274 in the hot-dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the 
average LCC impact is a cost of $68. For single-package heat pumps the 
average LCC impact is a savings of $15. For SDHV air conditioners, the 
average LCC impact is a cost of $202 in the rest of country, a cost of 
$14 in the hot-humid region, and a cost of $65 in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 6, the median payback period is 9.4 years for non-
weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and not applicable in 
the south; 11.5 years for mobile home gas furnaces in the northern 
region and not applicable in the south; and 19.8 years for oil-fired 
furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the median payback 
period is 33 years in the rest of country, 34 years in the hot-humid 
region, and 49 years in the hot-dry region. For split-system air 
conditioners (blower-coil), the median payback period is 28 years in 
the rest of

[[Page 37557]]

country, 8 years in the hot-humid region, and 11 years in the hot-dry 
region. For split-system heat pumps, the median payback period is 20 
years in the rest of country, 7 years in the hot-humid region, and 5 
years in the hot-dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the 
median payback period is 24 years. For single-package heat pumps, the 
median payback period is 14 years. For SDHV air conditioners, the 
median payback period is 74 years in the rest of country, 18 years in 
the hot-humid region, and 26 years in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 6, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
54 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 
0 percent in the south; 46 percent for mobile home gas furnaces in the 
northern region and 0 percent in the south; and 33 percent for oil-
fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 16 percent in the rest of 
country, 12 percent in the hot-humid region, and 9 percent in the hot-
dry region. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 12 percent in the 
rest of country, 39 percent in the hot-humid region, and 31 percent in 
the hot-dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 19 percent in the rest of 
country, 48 percent in the hot-humid region, and 52 percent in the hot-
dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 27 percent. For single-package 
heat pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 35 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 5 percent in the rest of country, 32 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 26 percent in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 6, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 23 
percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 0 
percent in the south; 46 percent for mobile home gas furnaces in the 
northern region and 0 percent in the south; and 35 percent for oil-
fired furnaces.
    For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 56 percent in the rest of 
country, 73 percent in the hot-humid region, and 75 percent in the hot-
dry region. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 43 percent in the 
rest of country, 25 percent in the hot-humid region, and 33 percent in 
the hot-dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 58 percent in the rest of 
country, 29 percent in the hot-humid region, and 25 percent in the hot-
dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 72 percent. For single-package 
heat pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 63 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 95 percent in the rest of country, 68 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 74 percent in the hot-dry region.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$680 million to a decrease of $1,873 million. At TSL 6, DOE recognizes 
the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning 
reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of 
impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 6 could result in a net loss of 
22.0 percent in INPV to furnace, central air conditioner, and heat pump 
manufacturers.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 6 for furnace and 
central air conditioner and heat pump energy efficiency, the benefits 
of energy savings, generating capacity reductions, emission reductions, 
and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits, the economic burden on a significant fraction of consumers 
due to the increases in installed product cost, and the capital 
conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a very 
large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. Consequently, the 
Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is not economically justified.
    As discussed in the direct final rule published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register, DOE calculated a range of results for 
national energy savings and NPV of consumer benefit under TSL 4. 
Because the range of results for TSL 4 overlaps with the results for 
TSL 5, and because TSLs 4 and 5 are similar in many aspects, DOE 
discusses the benefits and burdens of TSLs 4 and 5 together below.
    TSL 5 would save 3.98 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. TSL 4 would save 3.20 to 4.22 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be $3.47 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $15.69 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent. Under TSL 4, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $3.93 billion to $4.21 billion, using a 
discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.73 billion to $17.55 billion, using 
a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 116 Mt of 
CO2, 102 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.059 ton of 
Hg. The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 105 to 134 Mt of 
CO2, 90.1 to 117 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.097 
to 0.071 \3\ ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative 
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 5 ranges from $0.596 billion 
to $9.90 billion. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative 
CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.530 billion 
to $11.0 billion. Total generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to 
decrease by 3.56 GW under TSL 5, and by 3.81 to 3.69 GW under TSL 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE presents ranges of values throughout the document when 
analyzing multiple scenarios. For consistency, DOE presents the 
ranges in order of a first scenario followed by a second scenario, 
and then maintains the same order of scenarios when presenting 
results throughout the document, regardless of whether the values 
are arranged in order of lowest to highest. In certain cases in this 
document when DOE presents a range of impacts, the results do not go 
from a lower value to a higher value (as would normally be expected) 
because DOE presents the values in a manner that they are consistent 
with the presentation of the rest of the results for those 
scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of 
$323 for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and not 
applicable in the south; a savings of $585 for mobile home gas furnaces 
in the northern region and not applicable in the south; and a cost of 
$18 for oil-fired furnaces. At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a 
savings of $155 for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region 
and not applicable in the south, a savings of $419 for mobile home gas 
furnaces in the northern region and not applicable in the south, and a 
savings of $15 for oil-fired furnaces.
    For central air conditioners and heat pumps, the average LCC 
impacts for TSL 5 and TSL 4 are the same. For split-system air 
conditioners (coil-only), the average LCC impact is not applicable in 
the rest of country, but is a savings of $93 in the hot-humid region, 
and a savings of $107 in the hot-dry region. For split-system air 
conditioners (blower-coil), the average LCC impact is not applicable in 
the rest of country, but is a savings of $89 in the hot-humid region, 
and a savings of $101 in the hot-dry region. For split-system heat 
pumps, the average LCC impact is a savings of $4 in the rest of 
country, a savings of $102 in the hot-humid region, and a savings of 
$175 in the hot-dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the 
average LCC impact is a cost of $37. For single-package heat pumps, the 
average

[[Page 37558]]

LCC impact is a cost of $104. For SDHV air conditioners, the average 
LCC impact is not applicable for all regions.
    At TSL 5, the median payback period is 9.4 years for non-
weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and not applicable in 
the south, 11.5 years for mobile home gas furnaces in the northern 
region and not applicable in the south, and 19.8 years for oil-fired 
furnaces. At TSL 4, the median payback period is 10.1 years for non-
weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and not applicable in 
the south, 10.7 years for mobile home gas furnaces in the northern 
region and not applicable in the south, and 1.0 year for oil-fired 
furnaces.
    For central air conditioners and heat pumps, the median payback 
periods for TSL 5 and TSL 4 are the same. For split-system air 
conditioners (coil-only), the median payback period is not applicable 
in the rest of country, 7 years in the hot-humid region, and 10 years 
in the hot-dry region. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), 
the median payback period is not applicable in the rest of country, 8 
years in the hot-humid region, and 11 years in the hot-dry region. For 
split-system heat pumps, the median payback period is 13 years in the 
rest of country, 6 years in the hot-humid region, and 5 years in the 
hot-dry region. For single-package air conditioners, the median payback 
period is 15 years. For single-package heat pumps, the median payback 
period is 8 years. For SDHV air conditioners, the median payback period 
is not applicable in all regions.
    At TSL 5, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
54 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 
0 percent in the south, 46 percent for mobile home gas furnaces in the 
northern region and 0 percent in the south, and 33 percent for oil-
fired furnaces. At TSL 4, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
benefit is 19 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern 
region and 0 percent in the south, 47 percent for mobile home gas 
furnaces in the northern region and 0 percent in the south, and 32 
percent for oil-fired furnaces.
    For central air conditioners and heat pumps, at TSL 5 and at TSL 4, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is the same. For 
split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 0 percent in the rest of country, 46 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 36 percent in the hot-dry region. 
For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 0 percent in the rest of 
country, 34 percent in the hot-humid region, and 27 percent in the hot-
dry region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 20 percent in the rest of country, 38 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 40 percent in the hot-dry region. 
For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 33 percent. For single-package heat 
pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 35 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, no consumers experience an LCC 
benefit in any of the regions.
    At TSL 5, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 23 
percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern region and 0 
percent in the south, 46 percent for mobile home gas furnaces in the 
northern region and 0 percent in the south, and 35 percent for oil-
fired furnaces. At TSL 4, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC 
cost is 10 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the northern 
region and 0 percent in the south, 44 percent for mobile home gas 
furnaces in the northern region and 0 percent in the south, and 10 
percent for oil-fired furnaces.
    For central air conditioners and heat pumps, at TSL 5 and at TSL 4, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is the same. For 
split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent in the rest of country, 26 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 37 percent in the hot-dry region. 
For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent in the rest of country, 
21 percent in the hot-humid region, and 28 percent in the hot-dry 
region. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 35 percent in the rest of country, 17 
percent in the hot-humid region, and 15 percent in the hot-dry region. 
For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 37 percent. For single-package heat pumps, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 29 percent. For 
SDHV air conditioners, no consumers experience an LCC cost in any of 
the regions.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$508 million to a decrease of $915 million. At TSL 5, DOE recognizes 
the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations concerning 
reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the range of 
impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss of 
10.8 percent in INPV to furnace, central air conditioner, and heat pump 
manufacturers. At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a net 
loss of $478 million to a net loss of $900 million. At TSL 4, DOE 
recognizes the risk of negative impacts if manufacturers' expectations 
concerning reduced profit margins are realized. If the high end of the 
range of impacts is reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could result in a net 
loss of 10.6 percent in INPV to furnace, central air conditioner, and 
heat pump manufacturers.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 5 for furnace and 
central air conditioner and heat pump energy efficiency, the benefits 
of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating 
capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the CO2 emissions reductions are outweighed by the 
economic burden on some consumers due to large increases in installed 
cost, and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that 
could result in a large reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. 
Consequently, the Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is not 
economically justified.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 4 for furnace and 
central air conditioner and heat pump energy efficiency, the benefits 
of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, generating 
capacity reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary 
value of the CO2 emissions reductions would outweigh the 
economic burden on some consumers due to increases in installed cost, 
and the capital conversion costs and profit margin impacts that could 
result in a moderate reduction in INPV for the manufacturers. TSL 4 may 
yield greater cumulative energy savings than TSL 5, and also a higher 
NPV of consumer benefits at both 3-percent and 7-percent discount 
rates.
    In addition, the efficiency levels in TSL 4 correspond to the 
recommended levels in the consensus agreement, which DOE believes sets 
forth a statement by interested persons that are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers 
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates) and contains 
recommendations with respect to an energy conservation standard that 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 
the submission of consensus agreements as a way to get diverse 
stakeholders together, to develop an independent and probative analysis 
useful in DOE standard setting, and to expedite the rulemaking process. 
In the present case,

[[Page 37559]]

one outcome of the consensus agreement was a recommendation to 
accelerate the compliance dates for these products, which would have 
the effect of producing additional energy savings at an earlier date. 
DOE also believes that standard levels recommended in the consensus 
agreement may increase the likelihood for regulatory compliance, while 
decreasing the risk of litigation.
    After considering the analysis, comments to the furnaces RAP and 
the preliminary TSD for central air conditioners and heat pumps, and 
the benefits and burdens of TSL 4, the Secretary has tentatively 
concluded that this trial standard level offers the maximum improvement 
in efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and will result in significant conservation of energy. 
Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL 4 for furnaces and central air 
conditioners and heat pumps. Today's amended energy conservation 
standards for furnaces, central air conditioners, and heat pumps, 
expressed in terms of minimum energy efficiency, are shown in Table 
II.6.

   Table II.6--Proposed Standards for Residential Furnace, Central Air
              Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Proposed northern
          Product class            Proposed national  region ** standard
                                    standard levels         levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Residential Furnaces *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-weatherized gas.............  AFUE = 80%........  AFUE = 90%.
Mobile home gas.................  AFUE = 80%........  AFUE = 90%.
Non-weatherized oil-fired.......  AFUE = 83%........  AFUE = 83%.
Weatherized gas.................  AFUE = 81%........  AFUE = 81%.
Mobile home oil-fired [Dagger]    AFUE = 75%........  AFUE = 75%.
 [Dagger].
Weatherized oil-fired [Dagger]    AFUE = 78%........  AFUE = 78%.
 [Dagger].
Electric [Dagger] [Dagger]......  AFUE = 78%........  AFUE = 78%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
                                                                                                    Proposed
                                                                 Proposed southeastern (hot-   southwestern (hot-
         Product Class             Proposed national standard       humid) region [dagger]        dry) region
                                             levels                [dagger]standard levels     [Dagger] standard
                                                                                                     levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Split-system air conditioners..  SEER = 13....................  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14
                                                                                               EER = 12.2 (for
                                                                                                units with a
                                                                                                rated cooling
                                                                                                capacity less
                                                                                                than 45,000 Btu/
                                                                                                h) EER = 11.7
                                                                                                (for units with
                                                                                                a rated cooling
                                                                                                capacity equal
                                                                                                to or greater
                                                                                                than 45,000 Btu/
                                                                                                h).
Split-system heat pumps........  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14.
                                 HSPF = 8.2...................  HSPF = 8.2...................  HSPF = 8.2.
Single-package air conditioners  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14
                                                                                               EER = 11.0.
Single-package heat pumps......  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14....................  SEER = 14.
                                 HSPF = 8.0...................  HSPF = 8.0...................  HSPF = 8.0.
Small-duct, high-velocity        SEER = 13....................  SEER = 13....................  SEER = 13.
 systems.
                                 HSPF = 7.7...................  HSPF = 7.7...................  HSPF = 7.7.
Space-constrained products--air  SEER = 12....................  SEER = 12....................  SEER = 12.
 conditioners [Dagger] [Dagger]
Space-constrained products--     SEER = 12....................  SEER = 12....................  SEER = 12.
 heat pumps [Dagger] [Dagger].
                                 HSPF = 7.4...................  HSPF = 7.4...................  HSPF = 7.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* AFUE is Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency.
** The Northern region for furnaces contains the following States: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho,
  Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
  Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah,
  Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
[dagger] SEER is Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio; EER is Energy Efficiency Ratio; HSPF is Heating Seasonal
  Performance Factor; and Btu/h is British Thermal Units per hour.
[dagger] [dagger] The Southeastern region for central air conditioners and heat pumps contains the following
  States: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi,
  North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
[Dagger] The Southwestern region for central air conditioners and heat pumps contains the States of Arizona,
  California, Nevada, and New Mexico.
[Dagger] [Dagger] DOE is not proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for these product classes in
  this NOPR.

2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Residential Furnace, 
Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off Mode Power

    Table II.7 through Table II.9 present a summary of the quantitative 
impacts estimated for each TSL considered for furnace, central air 
conditioner, and heat pump standby mode and off mode power. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of 
the direct final rule.

[[Page 37560]]

 Table II.7--Summary of Results for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and
                                      Off Mode Power TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Category                        TSL 1                      TSL 2                      TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Energy Savings         0.153.....................  0.160....................  0.186.
 (quads).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate..............  1.14......................  1.18.....................  1.01.
7% discount rate..............  0.371.....................  0.373....................  0.235.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Cumulative Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).....  8.23......................  8.73.....................  10.1.
NOX (thousand tons)...........  6.60......................  7.00.....................  8.11.
Hg (ton)......................  0.056.....................  0.072....................  0.079.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (2009$ million)*..........  41.7 to 694...............  44.3 to 738..............  51.7 to 862.
NOX-3% discount rate (2009$     2.07 to 21.3..............  2.20 to 22.6.............  2.56 to 26.3.
 million).
NOX-7% discount rate (2009$     0.793 to 8.15.............  0.841 to 8.65............  0.975 to 10.0.
 million).
Generation Capacity Reduction   0.103.....................  0.110....................  0.127.
 (GW) **.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Employment Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Potential Change in   negligible................  negligible...............  negligible.
     Domestic Production
     Workers in 2016
     (thousands).
Indirect Domestic Jobs          0.80......................  0.86.....................  1.02.
 (thousands) **.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2
  emissions.
** Changes in 2045.

 Table II.8--Summary of Results for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and
                             Off Mode Power TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                        TSL 1                      TSL 2                      TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Manufacturer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in Industry NPV (2009$     4 to (253)...............  5 to (253)...............  23 to (255).
 million).
Industry NPV (% change).........  0.05 to (2.91)...........  0.06 to (2.91)...........  0.26 to (2.93).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Consumer Mean LCC Savings* (2009$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces....  2........................  2........................  0.
Mobile Home Gas Furnaces........  0........................  0........................  (1).
Oil-Fired Furnaces..............  1........................  1........................  1.
Electric Furnaces...............  0........................  0........................  (1).
Split-System Air Conditioners     84.......................  84.......................  84.
 (coil-only).
Split-System Air Conditioners     84.......................  40.......................  35.
 (blower-coil).
Split-System Heat Pumps.........  9........................  9........................  (1).
Single-Package Air Conditioners.  84.......................  41.......................  36.
Single-Package Heat Pumps.......  9........................  9........................  (1).
SDHV Air Conditioners...........  84.......................  37.......................  32.
Space-Constrained Air             84.......................  42.......................  37.
 Conditioners.
Space-Constrained Heat Pumps....  9........................  9........................  (1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Median PBP (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces....  11.......................  11.......................  16.
Mobile Home Gas Furnaces........  12.......................  12.......................  18.
Oil-Fired Furnaces..............  8........................  8........................  12.
Electric Furnaces...............  10.......................  10.......................  16.
Split-System Air Conditioners     1........................  1........................  1.
 (coil-only).
Split-System Air Conditioners     1........................  6........................  7.
 (blower-coil).
Split-System Heat Pumps.........  4........................  4........................  5.
Single-Package Air Conditioners.  1........................  6........................  7.
Single-Package Heat Pumps.......  4........................  4........................  5.
SDHV Air Conditioners...........  1........................  7........................  7.
Space-Constrained Air             1........................  6........................  7.
 Conditioners.
Space-Constrained Heat Pumps....  4........................  4........................  5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Parentheses indicate negative (-) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount
  indicated.

[[Page 37561]]

 Table II.9--Summary of Results for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and
                              Off Mode Power TSLs: Distribution of Consumer Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Category                                 TSL 1             TSL 2             TSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 9                 9                17
    No Impact (%).........................................                72                72                72
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                18                18                11
Mobile Home Gas Furnaces
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 6                 6                 8
    No Impact (%).........................................                91                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 4                 4                 2
Oil-Fired Furnaces
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 1                 1                 4
    No Impact (%).........................................                91                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 8                 8                 6
Electric Furnaces
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 4                 4                 7
    No Impact (%).........................................                90                90                90
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 5                 5                 3
Split-System Air Conditioners (coil-only)
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 0                 0
    No Impact (%).........................................                94                94                94
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 6                 6                 6
Split-System Air Conditioners (blower-coil)
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 3                 3
    No Impact (%).........................................                94                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 6                 6                 6
Split-System Heat Pumps
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 0                19
    No Impact (%).........................................                67                67                57
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                33                33                24
Single-Package Air Conditioners
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 3                 3
    No Impact (%).........................................                94                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 6                 6                 6
Single-Package Heat Pumps
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 0                19
    No Impact (%).........................................                66                66                57
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                34                34                24
SDHV Air Conditioners
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 3                 3
    No Impact (%).........................................                94                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 6                 6                 6
Space-Constrained Air Conditioners
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 3                 3
    No Impact (%).........................................                94                91                91
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                 6                 6                 6
Space-Constrained Heat Pumps
    Net Cost (%)..........................................                 0                 0                19
    No Impact (%).........................................                67                67                58
    Net Benefit (%).......................................                33                33                23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Values in the table are rounded off, and, thus, sums may not equal 100 percent in all cases.

    DOE first considered TSL 3, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 3 would save 0.186 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be $0.235 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.01 
billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 10.1 Mt of 
CO2, 8.11 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.079 ton of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 3 ranges from $51.7 million to $862 
million. Total generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 
0.127 GW under TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a cost (LCC increase) of $0 for 
non-weatherized gas furnaces, a cost of $1 for mobile home gas 
furnaces, a savings of $1 for oil-fired furnaces, and a cost of $1 for 
electric furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the 
average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $84. For split-system 
air conditioners (blower-coil), the average LCC impact is a savings of 
$35. For split-system heat pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost of 
$1. For single-package air conditioners, the average LCC impact is a 
savings of $36. For single-package heat pumps, the average LCC impact 
is a cost of $1. For SDHV air conditioners, the average LCC impact is a 
savings of $32. For space-constrained air conditioners, the average LCC 
impact is a savings of $37. For space-constrained heat pumps, the 
average LCC impact is a cost of $1.
    At TSL 3, the median payback period is 16 years for non-weatherized 
gas furnaces; 18 years for mobile home gas furnaces; 12 years for oil-
fired furnaces; and 16 years for electric furnaces. For

[[Page 37562]]

split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the median payback period is 
1 year. For split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the median 
payback period is 7 years. For split-system heat pumps, the median 
payback period is 5 years. For single-package air conditioners, the 
median payback period is 7 years. For single-package heat pumps, the 
median payback period is 5 years. For SDHV air conditioners, the median 
payback period is 7 years. For space-constrained air conditioners, the 
median payback period is 7 years. For space-constrained heat pumps, the 
median payback period is 5 years.
    At TSL 3, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
11 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 2 percent for mobile home 
gas furnaces, 6 percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 3 percent for 
electric furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For 
split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For split-system heat pumps, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24 percent. 
For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For single-package heat 
pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 24 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For space-constrained air 
conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
6 percent. For space-constrained heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 23 percent.
    At TSL 3, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 17 
percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 8 percent for mobile home gas 
furnaces, 4 percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 7 percent for electric 
furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent. For split-system 
air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of consumers experiencing 
an LCC cost is 3 percent. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent. For single-package 
air conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 
3 percent. For single-package heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 3 percent. For space-
constrained air conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an 
LCC cost is 3 percent. For space-constrained heat pumps, the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of 
$23 million to a decrease of $255 million. The model anticipates 
impacts on INPV to range from 0.26 percent to -2.93 percent. In 
general, the cost of standby mode and off mode features is not expected 
to significantly affect manufacturer profit margins for furnace, 
central air conditioner, and heat pump products.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 3 for furnace and 
central air conditioner and heat pump standby mode and off mode power, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits at 3-
percent discount rate, generating capacity reductions, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the CO2 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the negative NPV of 
consumer benefits at 7 percent and the economic burden on some 
consumers due to the increases in product cost. Of the consumers of 
furnaces and heat pumps who would be impacted, many more would be 
burdened by standards at TSL 3 than would benefit. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 would save 0.16 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $0.373 billion, using a discount rate of 7 percent, 
and $1.18 billion, using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 8.73 Mt of 
CO2, 7.00 thousand tons of NOX, and 0.072 tons of 
Hg. The estimated monetary value of the cumulative CO2 
emissions reductions at TSL 2 ranges from $44.3 million to $738 
million. Total generating capacity in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 
0.11 GW under TSL 2.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) of $2 
for non-weatherized gas furnaces, a savings of $0 for mobile home gas 
furnaces, a savings of $1 for oil-fired furnaces, and a savings of $0 
for electric furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), 
the average LCC impact is a savings of $84. For split-system air 
conditioners (blower-coil), the average LCC impact is a savings of $40. 
For split-system heat pumps, the average LCC impact is a savings of $9. 
For single-package air conditioners, the average LCC impact is a 
savings of $41. For single-package heat pumps, the average LCC impact 
is a savings of $9. For SDHV air conditioners, the average LCC impact 
is a savings of $37. For space-constrained air conditioners, the 
average LCC impact is a savings of $42. For space-constrained heat 
pumps, the average LCC impact is a savings of $9.
    At TSL 2, the median payback period is 11 years for non-weatherized 
gas furnaces; 12 years for mobile home gas furnaces; 8 years for oil-
fired furnaces; and 10 years for electric furnaces. For split-system 
air conditioners (coil-only), the median payback period is 1 year. For 
split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the median payback period 
is 6 years. For split-system heat pumps, the median payback period is 4 
years. For single-package air conditioners, the median payback period 
is 6 years. For single-package heat pumps, the median payback period is 
4 years. For SDHV air conditioners, the median payback period is 7 
years. For space-constrained air conditioners, the median payback 
period is 6 years. For space-constrained heat pumps, the median payback 
period is 4 years.
    At TSL 2, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
18 percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 4 percent for mobile home 
gas furnaces, 8 percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 5 percent for 
electric furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For 
split-system air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For split-system heat pumps, 
the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 33 percent. 
For single-package air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For single-package heat 
pumps, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 34 
percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 percent. For space-constrained air 
conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC benefit is 
6 percent. For space-constrained heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC benefit is 33 percent.
    At TSL 2, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 9 
percent for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 6 percent for mobile home gas 
furnaces, 1 percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 4 percent for electric 
furnaces. For split-system air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent. For split-system 
air conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction of consumers experiencing 
an

[[Page 37563]]

LCC cost is 3 percent. For split-system heat pumps, the fraction of 
consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent. For single-package air 
conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 3 
percent. For single-package heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 
experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent. For SDHV air conditioners, the 
fraction of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 3 percent. For space-
constrained air conditioners, the fraction of consumers experiencing an 
LCC cost is 3 percent. For space-constrained heat pumps, the fraction 
of consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent.
    At TSL 2, the projected change in INPV ranges from an increase of 
$5 million to a decrease of $253 million. The modeled impacts on INPV 
range from 0.06 percent to -2.91 percent. In general, the incremental 
cost of standby mode and off mode features are not expected to 
significantly affect INPV for the furnace, central air conditioner, and 
heat pump industry at this level.
    The Secretary preliminarily concludes that at TSL 2 for furnace, 
central air conditioner, and heat pump standby mode and off mode power, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits at 
both 7-percent and 3-percent discount rates, generating capacity 
reductions, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of 
the CO2 emissions reductions would outweigh the economic 
burden on a small fraction of consumers due to the increases in product 
cost. With the exception of consumers of mobile home gas furnaces 
(whose mean LCC impact is zero), the majority of the consumers that 
would be affected by standards at TSL 2 would see an LCC benefit. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is 
economically justified.
    After considering the analysis and the benefits and burdens of TSL 
2, the Secretary has preliminarily concluded that this trial standard 
level would offer the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result 
in the significant conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE is proposing 
TSL 2 for furnace, central air conditioner, and heat pump standby mode 
and off mode. The proposed energy conservation standards for standby 
mode and off mode, expressed as maximum power in watts, are shown in 
Table II.10.

  Table II.10--Proposed Standards for Residential Furnace, Central Air
         Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off Mode *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Proposed standby mode and off mode
          Product class                       standard  levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Residential Furnaces **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Weatherized Gas..............  PW,SB = 10 watts.
                                   PW,OFF = 10 watts.
Mobile Home Gas..................  PW,SB = 10 watts.
                                   PW,OFF = 10 watts.
Non-Weatherized Oil-Fired........  PW,SB = 11 watts.
                                   PW,OFF = 11 watts.
Mobile Home Oil-Fired............  PW,SB = 11 watts.
                                   PW,OFF = 11 watts.
Electric.........................  PW,SB = 10 watts.
                                   PW,OFF = 10 watts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Product class              Proposed off mode standard levels
                                              [dagger][dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps [dagger]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Split-system air conditioners....  PW,OFF = 30 watts.
Split-system heat pumps..........  PW,OFF = 33 watts.
Single-package air conditioners..  PW,OFF = 30 watts.
Single-package heat pumps........  PW,OFF = 33 watts.
Small-duct, high-velocity systems  PW,OFF = 30 watts.
Space-constrained air              PW,OFF = 30 watts.
 conditioners.
Space-constrained heat pumps.....  PW,OFF = 33 watts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* PW,SB is standby mode electrical power consumption, and PW,OFF is off
  mode electrical power consumption for furnaces.
** Standby mode and off mode energy consumption for weatherized gas and
  oil-fired furnaces is regulated as a part of single-package air
  conditioners and heat pumps, as discussed in detail in the direct
  final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
[dagger] PW,OFF is off mode electrical power consumption for central air
  conditioners and heat pumps.
[dagger][dagger] DOE is not proposing to adopt a separate standby mode
  standard level for central air conditioners and heat pumps, because
  standby mode power consumption for these products is already regulated
  by SEER and HSPF.

3. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Residential 
Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values over the analysis period. The 
annualized monetary values are the sum of: (1) The annualized national 
economic value (expressed in 2009$) of the benefits from operating 
products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of 
operating cost savings from using less energy, minus increases in 
equipment purchase costs, which is another way of representing consumer 
NPV); and (2) the monetary value of the benefits of emission 
reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.\4\ The value 
of the

[[Page 37564]]

CO2 reductions, otherwise known as the Social Cost of Carbon 
(SCC), is calculated using a range of values per metric ton of 
CO2 developed by a recent Federal interagency process. The 
monetary costs and benefits of cumulative emissions reductions are 
reported in 2009$ to permit comparisons with the other costs and 
benefits in the same dollar units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE used a two-step calculation process to convert the time-
series of costs and benefits into annualized values. First, DOE 
calculated a present value in 2011, the year used for discounting 
the NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the time-series of 
costs and benefits using discount rates of three and seven percent 
for all costs and benefits except for the value of CO2 
reductions. For the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 
shown in Table II.11. From the present value, DOE then calculated 
the fixed annual payment over a 32-year period, starting in 2011, 
that yields the same present value. The fixed annual payment is the 
annualized value. Although DOE calculated annualized values, this 
does not imply that the time-series of cost and benefits from which 
the annualized values were determined would be a steady stream of 
payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although combining the values of operating savings and 
CO2 reductions provides a useful perspective, two issues 
should be considered. First, the national operating savings are 
domestic U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of 
market transactions, while the value of CO2 reductions is 
based on a global value. Second, the assessments of operating cost 
savings and CO2 savings are performed with different methods 
that use quite different time frames for analysis. The national 
operating cost savings is measured for the lifetime of products shipped 
in 2013-2045 for furnaces and 2015-2045 for central air conditioners 
and heat pumps. The SCC values, on the other hand, reflect the present 
value of future climate-related impacts resulting from the emission of 
one metric ton of carbon dioxide in each year. These impacts continue 
well beyond 2100.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for residential furnace, central air conditioner, and heat 
pump energy efficiency are shown in Table II.11. Using a 7-percent 
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the 
cost of the energy efficiency standards in today's direct final rule is 
$527 million to $773 million per year in increased equipment installed 
costs, while the annualized benefits are $837 million to $1106 million 
per year in reduced equipment operating costs, $140 million to $178 
million in CO2 reductions, and $5.3 million to $6.9 million 
in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 
amounts to $456 million to $517 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 (in 2009$), 
the cost of the energy efficiency standards in today's direct final 
rule is $566 million to $825 million per year in increased equipment 
installed costs, while the benefits are $1289 million to $1686 million 
per year in reduced operating costs, $140 million to $178 million in 
CO2 reductions, and $7.9 million to $10.2 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $871 
million to $1049 million per year.

 Table II.11--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Energy Efficiency (TSL
                                                                           4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Monetized (million 2009$/year)
                                          Discount rate        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Primary estimate *              Low estimate *                High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........  7%..........................  837 to 1,106................  723 to 959..................  955 to 1,258.
                                  3%..........................  1,289 to 1,686..............  1,083 to 1,422..............  1,493 to 1,948.
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t **......  5%..........................  34 to 43....................  34 to 43....................  34 to 43.
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t **.....  3%..........................  140 to 178..................  141 to 178..................  140 to 178.
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t **.....  2.5%........................  224 to 284..................  225 to 285..................  224 to 284.
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t **.....  3%..........................  427 to 541..................  428 to 543..................  427 to 541.
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton **..  7%..........................  5.3 to 6.9..................  5.3 to 7.0..................  5.3 to 6.9.
                                  3%..........................  7.9 to 10.2.................  7.9 to 10.3.................  7.9 to 10.2.
    Total [dagger]..............  7% plus CO2 range...........  876 to 1,653................  762 to 1,509................  994 to 1,805.
                                  7%..........................  983 to 1,290................  869 to 1,144................  1,100 to 1,442.
                                  3%..........................  1,437 to 1,874..............  1,232 to 1,611..............  1,641 to 2,136.
                                  3% plus CO2 range...........  1,330 to 2,237..............  1,125 to 1,975..............  1,535 to 2,499.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs.......  7%..........................  527 to 773..................  574 to 840..................  555 to 819.
                                  3%..........................  566 to 825..................  630 to 916..................  599 to 876.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Net Benefits/Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger]..............  7% plus CO2 range...........  349 to 880..................  188 to 669..................  438 to 986.
                                  7%..........................  456 to 517..................  295 to 305..................  545 to 623.
                                  3%..........................  871 to 1,049................  601 to 695..................  1,042 to 1,260.
                                  3% plus CO2 range...........  764 to 1,412................  494 to 1,059................  935 to 1,623.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
  and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.1, and
  $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of
  $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is the average
  of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/ton in 2010 (in
  2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled
  discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

[[Page 37565]]

4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Residential 
Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off 
Mode Power

    As explained above, the benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for standby mode and off mode power can also be expressed in 
terms of annualized values. The annualized monetary values are the sum 
of: (1) The annualized national economic value (expressed in 2009$) of 
the benefits from operating products that meet the standards 
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, 
minus increases in equipment purchase costs, which is another way of 
representing consumer NPV); and (2) the monetary value of the benefits 
of emission reductions, including CO2 emission reductions.
    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards for residential furnace, central air conditioner, and heat 
pump standby mode and off mode power are shown in Table II.12. Using a 
7-percent discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 
2009$), the cost of the standby mode and off mode standards in this 
proposed rule is $16.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, 
while the annualized benefits are $46.5 million per year in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $12.4 million in CO2 reductions, 
and $0.4 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit amounts to $42.8 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 2009$), the 
cost of the standby mode and off mode standards in this proposed rule 
is $19.1 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
benefits are $79.3 million per year in reduced operating costs, $12.4 
million in CO2 reductions, and $0.6 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$73.2 million per year.

  Table II.12--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Residential Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off
                                                                   Mode Power (TSL 2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Monetized (million 2009$/year)
                                          Discount rate        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Primary estimate *              Low estimate *                High estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Cost Savings..........  7%..........................  46.5........................  40.4........................  52.8.
                                  3%..........................  79.3........................  67.9........................  90.8.
CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t**.......  5%..........................  2.9.........................  2.9.........................  2.9.
CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t**......  3%..........................  12.4........................  12.4........................  12.4.
CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t**......  2.5%........................  19.9........................  19.9........................  19.9.
CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t**......  3%..........................  37.6........................  37.6........................  37.6.
NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton**...  7%..........................  0.4.........................  0.4.........................  0.4.
                                  3%..........................  0.6.........................  0.6.........................  0.6.
    Total [dagger]..............  7% plus CO2 range...........  49.7 to 84.5................  43.6 to 78.4................  56.1 to 90.8.
                                  7%..........................  59.2........................  53.1........................  65.5.
                                  3%..........................  92.3........................  80.9........................  103.8.
                                  3% plus CO2 range...........  82.8 to 117.5...............  71.4 to 106.2...............  94.3 to 129.1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental Product Costs.......  7%..........................  16.4........................  15.2........................  17.7.
                                  3%..........................  19.1........................  17.6........................  20.6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Net Benefits/Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total [dagger]..............  7% plus CO2 range...........  33.3 to 68.1................  28.5 to 63.2................  38.4 to 73.1.
                                  7%..........................  42.8........................  38.0........................  47.9.
                                  3%..........................  73.2........................  63.3........................  83.2.
                                  3% plus CO2 range...........  63.7 to 98.4................  53.8 to 88.5................  73.7 to 108.5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case,
  and High Economic Growth case, respectively.
**&thnsp;The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9,
  $22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively.
  The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2009$) is
  the average of the low and high values used in DOE's analysis.
[dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/ton in 2010 (in
  2009$). In the rows labeled as ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled
  discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

III. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule until the date provided in the DATES section at the 
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit 
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods 
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
    Submitting comments via regulations.gov. The regulations.gov Web 
page will require 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 you for clarification, DOE 
may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include

[[Page 37566]]

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 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 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 
below.
    DOE processes submissions made through 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 regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via e-mail, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via e-mail, hand delivery, or mail 
also will be posted to 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, e-mail 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. E-mail submissions are 
preferred. If you submit via mail or hand delivery/courier, please 
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to submit 
printed copies. No facsimiles (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, that are written in English, and that 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. According 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 
e-mail, 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 e-mail 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. Public Meeting

    As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public meeting to allow for additional 
comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish notice of any meeting 
in the Federal Register.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule 
for further details.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's 
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
and Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 6, 2011.
Henry Kelly,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

    1. The authority for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    2. Section 430.23 is amended by:
    a. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(4), (m)(5), and (n)(5) as 
paragraphs (m)(5), (m)(6), and (n)(6), respectively;
    b. Adding new paragraphs (m)(4) and (n)(5); and
    c. Revising paragraph (n)(2).
    The additions and revision read as follows:

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

* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (4) The average off mode power consumption for central air 
conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps shall be 
determined according to appendix M of this subpart. Round the average 
off mode power consumption to the nearest watt.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (2) The annual fuel utilization efficiency for furnaces, expressed 
in

[[Page 37567]]

percent, is the ratio of the annual fuel output of useful energy 
delivered to the heated space to the annual fuel energy input to the 
furnace determined according to section 10.1 of appendix N of this 
subpart for gas and oil furnaces and determined in accordance with 
section 11.1 of the American National Standards Institute/American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
(ANSI/ASHRAE) Standard 103-1993 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
430.3) for electric furnaces. Round the annual fuel utilization 
efficiency to the nearest whole percentage point.
* * * * *
    (5) The average standby mode and off mode electrical power 
consumption for furnaces shall be determined according to section 8.6 
of appendix N of this subpart. Round the average standby mode and off 
mode electrical power consumption to the nearest watt.
* * * * *
    3. Appendix M to subpart B of part 430 is amended by adding a note 
after the heading that reads as follows:

Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

    Note: The procedures and calculations that refer to off mode 
energy consumption (i.e., sections 3.13 and 4.2.8 of this appendix 
M) need not be performed to determine compliance with energy 
conservation standards for central air conditioners and heat pumps 
at this time. However, any representation related to standby mode 
and off mode energy consumption of these products made after 
corresponding revisions to the central air conditioners and heat 
pumps test procedure must be based upon results generated under this 
test procedure, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
6293(c)(2). For residential central air conditioners and heat pumps 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, compliance with the 
applicable provisions of this test procedure is required in order to 
determine compliance with energy conservation standards.

* * * * *

    4. Appendix N to subpart B of part 430 is amended by:
    a. Removing all references to ``POFF'' and adding in 
their place ``PW,OFF'' in sections 8.6.2, 9.0, and 10.9;
    b. Removing all references to ``PSB'' and adding in 
their place ``PW,SB'' in sections 8.6.1, 8.6.2, 9.0, and 
10.9; and
    c. Revising the note after the heading.
    The revision reads as follows:

Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Furnaces and Boilers

    Note: The procedures and calculations that refer to off mode 
energy consumption (i.e., sections 8.6 and 10.9 of this appendix N) 
need not be performed to determine compliance with energy 
conservation standards for furnaces and boilers at this time. 
However, any representation related to standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption of these products made after April 18, 2011 must 
be based upon results generated under this test procedure, 
consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6293(c)(2). For 
furnaces manufactured on or after May 1, 2013, compliance with the 
applicable provisions of this test procedure is required in order to 
determine compliance with energy conservation standards. For 
boilers, the statute requires that after July 1, 2010, any adopted 
energy conservation standard shall address standby mode and off mode 
energy consumption for these products, and upon the compliance date 
for such standards, compliance with the applicable provisions of 
this test procedure will be required.

* * * * *

    5. Section 430.32 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(2);
    c. Adding paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6);
    d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii); and
    d. Adding paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), and (e)(1)(iv).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
effective dates.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps manufactured on or after January 23, 2006, and before January 1, 
2015, shall have Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal 
Performance Factor no less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Seasonal        Heating
                                               energy        seasonal
              Product class                  efficiency     performance
                                            ratio (SEER)   factor (HSPF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Split-system air conditioners........           13    ..............
(ii) Split-system heat pumps.............           13               7.7
(iii) Single-package air conditioners....           13    ..............
(iv) Single-package heat pumps...........           13               7.7
(v)(A) Through-the-wall air conditioners            10.9             7.1
 and heat pumps--split system \1\........
(v)(B) Through-the-wall air conditioners            10.6             7.0
 and heat pumps--single package \1\......
(vi) Small-duct, high-velocity systems...           13               7.7
(vii)(A) Space-constrained products--air            12    ..............
 conditioners............................
(vii)(B) Space-constrained products--heat           12               7.4
 pumps...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pump--split
  system'' and ``through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump--single
  package'' product classes only applied to products manufactured prior
  to January 23, 2010. Products manufactured as of that date must be
  assigned to one of the remaining product classes listed in this table.
  The product class assignment depends on the product's characteristics.
  Product class definitions can be found in 10 CFR 430.2 and 10 CFR part
  430, subpart B, appendix M. DOE believes that most, if not all, of the
  historically characterized ``through-the-wall'' products will be
  assigned to one of the space-constrained product classes.

    (3) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, shall have a Seasonal 
Energy Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal Performance Factor not 
less than:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Seasonal         Heating
                                              energy         seasonal
            Product class \1\               efficiency      performance
                                           ratio (SEER)    factor (HSPF)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Split-system air conditioners.......              13  ..............
(ii) Split-system heat pumps............              14             8.2
(iii) Single-package air conditioners...              14  ..............

[[Page 37568]]

 
(iv) Single-package heat pumps..........              14             8.0
(v) Small-duct, high-velocity systems...              13             7.7
(vi)(A) Space-constrained products--air               12  ..............
 conditioners...........................
(vii)(B) Space-constrained products--                 12             7.4
 heat pumps.............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ``through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pump--split
  system'' and ``through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump--single
  package'' product classes only applied to products manufactured prior
  to January 23, 2010. Products manufactured as of that date must be
  assigned to one of the remaining product classes listed in this table.
  The product class assignment depends on the product's characteristics.
  Product class definitions can be found in 10 CFR 430.2 and 10 CFR part
  430, subpart B, appendix M. DOE believes that most, if not all, of the
  historically characterized ``through-the-wall'' products will be
  assigned to one of the space-constrained product classes.

    (4) In addition to meeting the applicable requirements in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section, products in product class (i) of that paragraph 
(i.e., split-system air conditioners) that are manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2015, and installed in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Texas, or Virginia, or in the District of Columbia, shall have a 
Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio not less than 14.
    (5) In addition to meeting the applicable requirements in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section, products in product classes (i) and (iii) of 
paragraph (c)(3) (i.e., split-system air conditioners and single-
package air conditioners) that are manufactured on or after January 1, 
2015, and installed in the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, or 
New Mexico shall have a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio not less than 
14 and have an Energy Efficiency Ratio (at a standard rating of 95 
[deg]F dry bulb outdoor temperature) not less than the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Energy
                      Product class                         efficiency
                                                            ratio (EER)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Split-system rated cooling capacity less than 45,000            12.2
 Btu/hr.................................................
(ii) Split-system rated cooling capacity equal to or                11.7
 greater than 45,000 Btu/hr.............................
(iii) Single-package systems............................            11.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (6) Central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps manufactured on or after January 1, 2015, shall have an average 
off mode electrical power consumption not more than the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Average off
                                                            mode power
                      Product class                         consumption
                                                          PW,OFF (watts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Split-system air conditioners.......................              30
(ii) Split-system heat pumps............................              33
(iii) Single-package air conditioners...................              30
(iv) Single-package heat pumps..........................              33
(v) Small-duct, high-velocity systems...................              30
(vi) Space-constrained air conditioners.................              30
(vii) Space-constrained heat pumps......................              33
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE) of residential 
furnaces shall not be less than the following for non-weatherized 
furnaces manufactured before May 1, 2013, and weatherized furnaces 
manufactured before January 1, 2015:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               AFUE
                      Product class                        (percent) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Furnaces (excluding classes noted below)............              78
(B) Mobile Home furnaces................................              75
(C) Small furnaces (other than those designed solely for
 installation in mobile homes) having an input rate of
 less than 45,000 Btu/hr
    (1) Weatherized (outdoor)...........................              78
    (2) Non-weatherized (indoor)........................              78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, as determined in Sec.
  430.23(n)(2) of this part.

    (ii) The AFUE of residential non-weatherized furnaces manufactured 
on or after May 1, 2013, and weatherized gas and oil-fired furnaces 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2015 shall be not less than the 
following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               AFUE
                      Product class                        (percent) \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Non-weatherized gas furnaces (not including mobile                80
 home furnaces).........................................
(B) Mobile Home gas furnaces............................              80
(C) Non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces (not including                 83
 mobile home furnaces)..................................
(D) Mobile Home oil-fired furnaces......................              75
(E) Weatherized gas furnaces............................              81
(F) Weatherized oil-fired furnaces......................              78
(G) Electric furnaces...................................              78
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, as determined in Sec.
  430.23(n)(2) of this part.

    (iii) In addition to meeting the applicable requirements in 
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, products in product classes (A) 
and (B) of that paragraph (i.e., residential non-weatherized gas 
furnaces (including mobile home furnaces)) that are manufactured on or 
after May 1, 2013, and installed in the States of Alaska, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming, shall have an AFUE not less than 
90 percent.
    (iv) Furnaces manufactured on or after May 1, 2013, shall have an 
electrical standby mode power consumption (PW,SB) and 
electrical off mode power consumption (PW,OFF) not more than 
the following:

[[Page 37569]]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Maximum       Maximum off
                                           standby mode        mode
                                            electrical      electrical
              Product class                    power           power
                                           consumption,    consumption,
                                           PW,SB (watts)  PW,OFF (watts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Non-weatherized gas furnaces                      10              10
 (including mobile home furnaces).......
(B) Non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces                11              11
 (including mobile home furnaces).......
(C) Electric furnaces...................              10              10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-14556 Filed 6-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
```