02/09/2007

Subject: RE: Reopening of Comment Period for the Department of Energy NOPR for Residential

Furnaces and Boilers

0 Federal Record ® Not a Federal Record

User Filed as : Not Categorized in ERMS

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This email is to inform you that the US Department of Energy has reopened the comment period regarding its

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the current minimum energy conservation standards for

residential furnaces and boilers, which was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR

59204. The Department has provided an official notice of this reopening in today's FR and will accept

comments until February 26, 2007. On October 30 , 2006, the Department held a public meeting for interested

parties to provide comment and discuss issues. At the public meeting , stakeholders raised two questions that

the Department indicated it would respond to in further detail prior to the close of the comment period which

was originally set for January 15, 2007. This notice addresses both stakeholder questions and reopens the

comment period to allow stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment to DOE's response to the two

issues. The Department looks forward to receiving any comments you wish to submit.

Thank you.

Mohammed Khan

Building Technologies Program

United States Department of Energy

(202) 586-7892 voice

(202) 586-5557 fax

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 147

02/09/2007 Subject: RE: Reopening of Comment Period for the Department of Energy NOPR for Residential 

Furnaces and Boilers 

o Federal Record • Not a Federal Record 

User Filed as: Not Categorized in ERMS 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

This email is to inform you that the US Department of Energy has reopened the comment period regarding its 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the current minimum energy conservation standards for 

residential furnaces and boilers, which was published in the Federal Register on October 6,2006. 71 FR 

59204. The Department has provided an official notice of this reopening in today's FR and will accept 

comments until February 26,2007. On October 30,2006, the Department held a public meeting for interested 

parties to provide comment and discuss issues. At the public meeting, stakeholders raised two questions that 

the Department indicated it would respond to in further detail prior to the close of the comment period which 

was originally set for January 15,2007. This notice addresses both stakeholder questions and reopens the 

comment period to allow stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment to DOE's response to the two 

issues. The Department looks forward to receiving any comments you wish to submit. 

Thank you. 

Mohammed Khan 

Building Technologies Program 

United States Depaliment of Energy 

(202) 586-7892 voice 

(202) 586-5557 fax 
6184 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 27 /Friday, February 9, 2007 /Proposed Rules

(3) With the result multiplied by 1.03.

Proposed by Maine Dairy Industry

Association

Proposal No. 18

This proposal seeks to incorporate a

factor to account for any monthly spread

between component price calculations

for milk and a competitive pay price for

equivalent Grade A milk.

The proposal seeks to derive a factor

by using an updated version of the

Department's 1994-1996 simulated

analysis of a competitive pay price for

Grade A milk. The proposal would

modify the previously used survey to

adapt it to regulatory changes,

specifically related to component

pricing. The proposal seeks an outcome

whereby a survey of plants located in

nine States, including California, as

performed to develop a competitive

Grade A price series, would be used to

identify a spread, if any between the

component and competitive values of

Grade A raw milk. That spread, in

whole or in part, would be incorporated

into Federal order minimum prices.

Proposed by Dairy Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service

Proposal No. 19

For all Federal Milk Marketing

Orders, make such changes as may be

necessary to make the entire marketing

agreements and the orders conform with

any amendments thereto that may result

from this hearing.

Copies of this notice of hearing and

the orders may be procured from the

Market Administrator of each of the

aforesaid marketing areas, or from the

Hearing Clerk, United States

Department of Agriculture, STOP

9200-Room 1031, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-

9200, or may be inspected there.

Copies of the transcript of testimony

taken at the hearing will not be available

for distribution through the Hearing

Clerk's Office. If you wish to purchase

a copy, arrangements may be made with

the reporter at the hearing.

From the time that a hearing notice is

issued and until the issuance of a final

decision in a proceeding, Department

employees involved in the decisionmaking process are prohibited from

discussing the merits of the hearing

issues on an ex parte basis with any

person having an interest in the

proceeding. For this particular

proceeding, the prohibition applies to

employees in the following

organizational units:

Office of the Secretary of Agriculture,

Office of the Administrator,

Agricultural Marketing Service,

Office of the General Counsel,

Dairy Programs, Agricultural

Marketing Service (Washington office)

and the Offices of all Market

Administrators.

Procedural matters are not subject to

the above prohibition and may be

discussed at any time.

Dated: February 5, 2007.

Lloyd C. Day,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 07-570 Filed 2-6-07; 11:54 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350]

RIN 1904-AA78

Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products : Energy

Conservation Standards for

Residential Furnaces and Boilers

AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION : Notice of data availability and

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY : A notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the

current minimum energy conservation

standards for residential furnaces and

boilers was published in the Federal

Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR

59204. On October 30, 2006, the

Department of Energy (DOE) held a

public meeting for interested parties to

provide comments and discuss relevant

issues. At the public meeting, DOE

indicated it would respond to two

particular questions that stakeholders

raised regarding DOE's NOPR estimates

for potential energy savings associated

with regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern

regions, and regarding new installation

costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice

both addresses the stakeholders

questions and reopens the comment

period to provide an opportunity for

public review and comment on DOE's

response to each question.

DATES : DOE will accept comments until

February 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES : DOE will accept comments,

data, and information regarding the

proposed rule no later than the date

provided in the DATES section. Any

comments submitted must include the

docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350

and/or Regulatory Information Number

(RIN) 1904-AA78. 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.ResidentialFBNOPR

Comments@ee.doe.gov. Include the

docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350

and/or RIN 1904-AA78 in the subject

line of the message.

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones,

U.S. Department of Energy, Building

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please

submit one signed original paper copy.

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of

Energy, Building Technologies Program,

Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585.

Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please

submit one signed original paper copy.

Electronic comments must be submitted

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word,

Portable Document Format (PDF), or

text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use

of special characters or any form of

encryption.

Copies of public comments may be

examined in the Resource Room of the

Appliance Standards Office of the

Building Technologies Program, Room

1J-018 in the Forrestal Building at the

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC, between the hours of

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. Please

call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the

above telephone number for additional

information about visiting the Resource

Room.

Please note: the DOE's Freedom of

Information Reading Room (formerly Room

1E-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer

servicing rulemakings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building,

Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121, (202) 586-7892, E-mail:

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or

Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of General Counsel,

Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-72,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7432,

E-mail: Francine.Pinto@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 147

#147 

6184 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 27/Friday, February 9, 2007/Proposed Rules 

(3) With the result multiplied by 1.03. 

* * * * * 

Proposed by Maine Dairy Industry 

Association 

Proposal No. 18 

This proposal seeks to incorporate a 

factor to account for any monthly spread 

between component price calculations 

for milk and a competitive pay price for 

equivalent Grade A milk. 

The proposal seeks to derive a factor 

by using an updated version of the 

Department's 1994-1996 simulated 

analysis of a competitive pay price for 

Grade A milk. The proposal would 

modify the previously used survey to 

adapt it to regulatory changes, 

specifically related to component 

pricing. The proposal seeks an outcome 

whereby a survey of plants located in 

nine States, including California, as 

performed to develop a competitive 

Grade A price series, would be used to 

identify a spread, if any between the 

component and competitive values of 

Grade A raw milk. That spread, in 

whole or in part, would be incorporated 

into Federal order minimum prices. 

Proposed by Dairy Programs, 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Proposal No. 19 

For all Federal Milk Marketing 

Orders, make such changes as may be 

necessary to make the entire marketing 

agreements and the orders conform with 

any amendments thereto that may result 

from this hearing. 

Copies of this notice of hearing and 

the orders may be procured from the 

Market Administrator of each of the 

aforesaid marketing areas, or from the 

Hearing Clerk, United States 

Department of Agriculture, STOP 

9200-Room 1031, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-

9200, or may be inspected there. 

Copies of the transcript of testimony 

taken at the hearing will not be available 

for distribution through the Hearing 

Clerk's Office. If you wish to purchase 

a copy, arrangements may be made with 

the reporter at the hearing. 

From the time that a hearing notice is 

issued and until the issuance of a final 

decision in a proceeding, Department 

employees involved in the decisionmaking process are prohibited from 

discussing the merits of the hearing 

issues on an ex parte basis with any 

person having an interest in the 

proceeding. For this particular 

proceeding, the prohibition applies to 

employees in the following 

organizational units: 

Office of the Secretary of Agriculture, 

Office of the Administrator, 

Agricultural Marketing Service, 

Office ofthe General Counsel, 

Dairy Programs, Agricultural 

Marketing Service (Washington office) 

and the Offices of all Market 

Administrators. 

Procedural matters are not subject to 

the above prohibition and may be 

discussed at any time. 

Dated: February 5,2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 07-570 Filed 2-6-07; 11:54 am} 

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EE-RM/STD-01-350] 

RIN 1904-AA78 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: A notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) to amend the 

current minimum energy conservation 

standards for residential furnaces and 

boilers was published in the Federal 

Register on October 6, 2006. 71 FR 

59204. On October 30, 2006, the 

Department of Energy (DOE) held a 

public meeting for interested parties to 

provide comments and discuss relevant 

issues. At the public meeting, DOE 

indicated it would respond to two 

particular questions that stakeholders 

raised regarding DOE's NOPR estimates 

for potential energy savings associated 

with regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern 

regions, and regarding new installation 

costs for oil-fired furnaces. This notice 

both addresses the stakeholders 

questions and reopens the comment 

period to provide an opportunity for 

public review and comment on DOE's 

response to each question. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments until 

February 26, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: DOE will accept comments, 

data, and information regarding the 

proposed rule no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section. Any 

comments submitted must include the 

docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 

and/or Regulatory Information Number 

(RIN) 1904-AA78. 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:ResidentialFBNOPR 

Comments@ee.doe.gov. Include the 

docket number EE-RM/STD-01-350 

and/or RIN 1904-AA78 in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Room lJ-018, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585. 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please 

submit one signed original paper copy. 

Electronic comments must be submitted 

in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, 

Portable Document Format (PDF), or 

text (ASCII) file format. Avoid the use 

of special characters or any form of 

encryption. 

Copies of public comments may be 

examined in the Resource Room of the 

Appliance Standards Office of the 

Building Technologies Program, Room 

lJ-018 in the Forrestal Building at the 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. Please 

call Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones at the 

above telephone number for additional 

information about visiting the Resource 

Room. 

Please note: the DOE's Freedom of 

Information Reading Room (formerly Room 

lE-190 at the Forrestal Building) is no longer 

servicing rulemakings. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Forrestal Building, 

Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-

0121, (202) 586-7892, E-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov; or 

Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of General Counsel, 

Forrestal Building, Mailstop GC-72, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7432, 

E-mail: Francine.Pinto@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 
Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 27 /Friday, February 9, 2007 /Proposed Rules

II. Discussion

A. Regional Analysis

B. Installation Cost Differences

1. Background

Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes

DOE to establish energy conservation

standards for various consumer

products including those residential

furnaces and boilers for which DOE

determines that energy conservation

standards would be technologically

feasible and economically justified, and

would result in significant energy

savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to

EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on

October 6, 2006, to amend the energy

conservation standards for residential

furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204.

Thereafter, DOE held a public meeting

on October 30, 2006, to address the

proposed rule (hereafter referred to as

the October 2006 public meeting). At

the October 2006 public meeting, the

American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

(ASAP) questioned DOE's estimates of

the energy savings that would likely

result from regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern

regions (cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE,

No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159) 1 In addition,

ACEEE requested further clarification of

new installation cost increases applied

in the proposed rule for oil-fired

furnaces that were rated between 82

percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel

Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE,

No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today's notice of

data availability and extension of the

comment period addresses both the

estimates of energy savings from

regional energy conservation standards

for non-weatherized gas furnaces and

the cost increases associated with the

installation of new oil-fired furnaces. In

addition, it provides an opportunity for

stakeholders to review and comment on

DOE's revised estimates.

II. Discussion

A. Regional Analysis

During the October 2006 public

meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned

DOE's estimates of the energy savings

that would likely result from regional

standards for non-weatherized gas

furnaces in cold states. The estimates in

the NOPR indicated that the energy

savings would likely be much lower

where the regions were defined using

6000 Heating Degree Days (HDD),

compared to those where the regions

were defined using 5000 HDD (as listed

in Table VIA.-Non-Regulatory

Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR

59253).

The results presented in the NOPR for

the Northern (cold states) and Southern

(warm states) regions (using either the

5000 or 6000 HDD threshold) (as listed

in Table VIA.-Non-Regulatory

Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 59253)

were generated by the national impact

analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, which

utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle

cost spreadsheets constructed to

separately analyze each region. DOE

performed the NIA on the basis of the

nine U.S. Census Bureau (cartographic)

divisions, plus four large states (New

York, California, Texas, and Florida),

rather than on a state-by-state basis (as

explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR

Technical Support Document (TSD)).

Based on condensing gas furnace sales

data expressed as a percentage of total

gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas

Appliance Manufacturers Association

(GAMA), DOE was able to derive the

base case for analyzing the potential

impacts of regional energy conservation

standards. Then, DOE applied the statelevel GAMA data to the nine U.S.

Census Bureau divisions, assuming that

6185

condensing gas furnaces were installed

in households solely on the basis of

climate (i.e., high HDDs). In other

words, within each U.S. Census Bureau

division, DOE assumed that condensing

gas furnaces were used primarily by

households that experienced high

HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE

assigned condensing gas furnaces to

90.4 percent of households with greater

than 6000 HDD. It was this assumption

that led to the relatively small energy

savings estimated to result from a

condensing level standard for states or

regions with more than 6000 HDD (on

average), and the relatively large

increment of energy savings estimated

to result from the same standard when

applied to all states or regions with

more than 5000 HDD (on average). 71

FR 59253.

Upon further examination, DOE found

that its assumption, that the existing

(and future) market for condensing gas

furnaces (absent a standard) was likely

to be concentrated in the coldest states

or regions, was not consistent with the

state-by-state sales data provided by

GAMA. Consequently, DOE is

considering alternative analyses that

would reflect a distribution of

condensing gas furnaces which is more

consistent with the GAMA sales data.

Reliance on an alternative analysis

that addresses the distribution of

condensing gas furnaces will primarily

impact the regulatory impact analysis.

However, DOE does not anticipate that

changes to the distribution of

condensing gas furnaces relied upon in

the NOPR analysis, will impact the

determination of the appropriate energy

conservation standards levels.

In view of the above, Table 1 below

provides the results of one possible

alternative analysis under consideration

by DOE.

TABLE 1.-NON-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS

Policy alternatives

Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * "` .

Cold States (?5000 HDD) (TSL 4) .....................................................................................

Warm States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2) ...................................................................................

Regional Performance Standards for NWGF * * .

Cold States (?6000 HDD) (TSL 4) .....................................................................................

Warm States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2) ...................................................................................

Net prese nt value

Energy savings (billio n $)

(quads) 7% discount 3% discount

rate rate

1.83 0.88 6.43

0.004 0.01 0.03

1.32 0.72 4.90

0.005 0.01 0.05

I A notation in the form "ASAP and ACEEE, No. docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room

107.6 at pp. 153-159," identifies a comment in the refers to a comment (1) by the American Council of the Building Technologies Program), and (3)

transcript of the Public Meeting on Standards for for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the appearing on pages 153-159 of document number

Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington, DC, 10/ Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 107.6.

30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the (2) in the document number 107.6 in the docket of

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 147

#147 

Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 27/Friday, February 9, 2007/Proposed Rules 6185 

II. Discussion 

A. Regional Analysis 

B. Installation Cost Differences 

I. Background 

Part B of Title III of EPCA authorizes 

DOE to establish energy conservation 

standards for various consumer 

products including those residential 

furnaces and boilers for which DOE 

determines that energy conservation 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in significant energy 

savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(e)) Pursuant to 

EPCA, DOE published a NOPR on 

October 6, 2006, to amend the energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces and boilers. 71 FR 59204. 

Thereafter, DOE held a public meeting 

on October 30, 2006, to address the 

proposed rule (hereafter referred to as 

the October 2006 public meeting). At 

the October 2006 public meeting, the 

American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy (ACEEE) and the 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP) questioned DOE's estimates of 

the energy savings that would likely 

result from regional standards for nonweatherized gas furnaces in Northern 

regions (cold states). (ASAP and ACEEE, 

No. 107.6 at pp. 153-159) 1 In addition, 

ACEEE requested further clarification of 

new installation cost increases applied 

in the proposed rule for oil-fired 

furnaces that were rated between 82 

percent and 83 percent for Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency (AFUE). (ACEEE, 

No. 107.6 at p. 121) Today's notice of 

data availability and extension of the 

comment period addresses both the 

estimates of energy savings from 

regional energy conservation standards 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces and 

the cost increases associated with the 

installation of new oil-fired furnaces. In 

addition, it provides an opportunity for 

stakeholders to review and comment on 

DOE's revised estimates. 

II. Discussion 

A. Regional Analysis 

During the October 2006 public 

meeting, ACEEE and ASAP questioned 

DOE's estimates ofthe energy savings 

that would likely result from regional 

standards for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in cold states. The estimates in 

the NOPR indicated that the energy 

savings would likely be much lower 

where the regions were defined using 

6000 Heating Degree Days (HDD), 

compared to those where the regions 

were defined using 5000 HDD (as listed 

in Table VI.1.-Non-Regulatory 

Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 

59253). 

The results presented in the NOPR for 

the Northern (cold states) and Southern 

(warm states) regions (using either the 

5000 or 6000 HDD threshold) (as listed 

in Table VI.1.-Non-Regulatory 

Alternatives To Standards, 71 FR 59253) 

were generated by the national impact 

analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, which 

utilizes inputs generated by life-cycle 

cost spreadsheets constructed to 

separately analyze each region. DOE 

performed the NIA on the basis of the 

nine U.S. Census Bureau (cartographic) 

divisions, plus four large states (New 

York, California, Texas, and Florida), 

rather than on a state-by-state basis (as 

explained in section 10.5 of the NOPR 

Technical Support Document (TSD)). 

Based on condensing gas furnace sales 

data expressed as a percentage of total 

gas furnace sales, as provided by the Gas 

Appliance Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA), DOE was able to derive the 

base case for analyzing the potential 

impacts of regional energy conservation 

standards. Then, DOE applied the statelevel GAMA data to the nine U.S. 

Census Bureau divisions, assuming that 

condensing gas furnaces were installed 

in households solely on the basis of 

climate (Le., high HDDs). In other 

words, within each U.S. Census Bureau 

division, DOE assumed that condensing 

gas furnaces were used primarily by 

households that experienced high 

HDDs. Thus, in the analysis, DOE 

assigned condensing gas furnaces to 

90.4 percent of households with greater 

than 6000 HDD. It was this assumption 

that led to the relatively small energy 

savings estimated to result from a 

condensing level standard for states or 

regions with more than 6000 HDD (on 

average), and the relatively large 

increment of energy savings estimated 

to result from the same standard when 

applied to all states or regions with 

more than 5000 HDD (on average). 71 

FR 59253. 

Upon further examination, DOE found 

that its assumption, that the existing 

(and future) market for condensing gas 

furnaces (absent a standard) was likely 

to be concentrated in the coldest states 

or regions, was not consistent with the 

state-by-state sales data provided by 

GAMA. Consequently, DOE is 

considering alternative analyses that 

would reflect a distribution of 

condensing gas furnaces which is more 

consistent with the GAMA sales data. 

Reliance on an alternative analysis 

that addresses the distribution of 

condensing gas furnaces will primarily 

impact the regulatory impact analysis. 

However, DOE does not anticipate that 

changes to the distribution of 

condensing gas furnaces relied upon in 

the NOPR analysis, will impact the 

determination of the appropriate energy 

conservation standards levels. 

In view of the above, Table 1 below 

provides the results of one possible 

alternative analysis under consideration 

by DOE. 

TABLE 1.-NoN-REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES TO STANDARDS 

Policy alternatives 

Regional Perforrnance Standards for NWGF * * *: 

Cold States (<:5000 HDD) (TSL 4) .................................................................................... . 

Warrn States (<5000 HDD) (TSL 2) .................................................................................. . 

Regional Perforrnance Standards for NWGF * * *: 

Cold States (<:6000 HDD) (TSL 4) .................................................................................... . 

Warrn States (<6000 HDD) (TSL 2) .................................................................................. . 

1 A notation in the form "ASAP and ACEEE, No. 

107.6 at pp. 153-159," identifies a comment in the 

transcript of the Public Meeting on Standards for 

Furnaces and Boilers held in Washington, DC, 101 

30/2006, which is document number 107.6 in the 

docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation 

refers to a comment (1) by the American Council 

for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE) and the 

Applicance Standards Awareness Project (ASAP), 

(2) in the document number 107.6 in the docket of 

Net present value 

Energy savings I-____ {_b_ill_io,n_$_) ___ _ 

(quads) 

1.83 

0.004 

1.32 

0.005 

7% discount 

rate 

0.88 

0.01 

0.72 

0.01 

3% discount 

rate 

6.43 

0.03 

4.90 

0.05 

this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room 

of the Building Technologies Program), and (3) 

appearing on pages 153-159 of document number 

107.6. 
6186 Federal Register /Vol. 72, No. 27 /Friday, February 9, 2007 /Proposed Rules

The alternative assumptions for the

state or regional distribution of

condensing furnaces in the base case are

likely to have some effect on other facets

of DOE's analysis, but none of these

other effects are likely to be significant.

While this alternative analysis of the

possible impacts of regional standards

does not have any significant effects on

DOE's assessment of the benefits and

burdens associated with the trial

standards levels for national standards,

it could affect stakeholder assessments

of possible alternatives to a national

standard. For this reason, DOE

concluded that it should present the

alternative results for stakeholder

consideration and comment.

B. Installation Cost Differences

At the October 2006 public meeting,

ACEEE requested further clarification of

the new installation cost increases

applied in the NOPR analysis for oilfired furnaces rated between 82 percent

and 83 percent AFUE. (Public Meeting

Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121)

In the Advance Notice of Public

Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated

the installation costs for oil-fired

furnaces by assuming that upgraded

Category III venting systems would be

needed to prevent corrosion in 100

percent of the installations rated 84

percent AFUE and above (as explained

in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD).

DOE presented these installation costs

at the ANOPR public meeting and

received the following comments from

ACEEE and GAMA.

GAMA commented that Brookhaven

National Lab (BNL) had done an

extensive amount of work on oil venting

and that DOE should ask BNL for its

information as a data resource for oilfired furnace venting systems. (Public

Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.)

ACEEE commented that there are oilfired boilers rated 86 percent AFUE and

oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that

have significant market share. ACEEE

recommended that DOE reexamine the

application of Category III vents at

efficiency levels rated below 84 percent

AFUE, determine at which efficiency

level Category III vents are required 100

percent of the time, and apply some

type of phase-in of the venting systems,

rather than a single-step function as

DOE had done in the ANOPR analysis.

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at

p. 113.)

In response to the comments both

from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further

examined oil-fired furnace venting

systems and consulted with BNL on

furnace installation requirements. BNL

indicated that some fraction of the

installations rated at 83 percent AFUE

may require Category III venting

systems. As a result of its consultations

with BNL, DOE revised its ventingmodel assumptions, which

characterized the rate of required

Category III venting systems, from using

a step function to a more linear, "phasein" function, which assigns a Category

III-requirement rate of 25 percent for oilfired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE,

and gradually increases the percentage

of installations using Category III

venting systems for oil-fired furnaces

rated above 83 percent AFUE. DOE's

approach is further detailed and

explained in section 6.5.6 of the NOPR

TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a

per-installation cost adder for Category

III venting systems that does not change

with the AFUE level of oil-fired

furnaces. It is the change in the assumed

frequency of installations requiring

Category III venting systems which

results in the cost differences. Table 2,

below, compares the DOE's ANOPR and

NOPR assumptions about the fraction of

the oil furnaces that require Category III

venting systems at certain efficiency

levels:

TABLE 2.-FRACTION OF THE OIL FURNACES REQUIRING CATEGORY III

VENTING SYSTEMS

Efficiency level ANOPR

(percent)

NOPR

(percent)

82% and below ..... 0 0

83% ....................... 0 25

84% ....................... 100 50

85% ....................... 100 75

86% and above .... 100 100

DOE welcomes comment on its

assumptions for use of Category III

venting systems for oil-fired furnaces.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2,

2007.

Alexander A. Karsner,

Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy.

[FR Doc. E7-2167 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number: EE-RM/STD-00-550]

RIN 1904-AB08

Energy Conservation Program for

Commercial Equipment: Distribution

Transformers Energy Conservation

Standards

AGENCY : Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of data availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY : The Department of Energy

(DOE) issued a notice of proposed

rulemaking (NOPR) for liquid-immersed

and medium-voltage, dry-type

distribution transformers under the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act

(EPCA). In response to this notice,

stakeholders commented that DOE's

standard may prevent or render

impractical the replacement of

distribution transformers in certain

space-constrained (e.g., vault)

installations. Some stakeholders

suggested that DOE's analysis of the

benefits and burdens of the proposed

standard should take into consideration

the potential impacts of replacing

transformers in space-constrained

vaults. In the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE factored

weight-dependent installation costs in

the analysis, but did not specifically

address potential costs related to

transformers installed in vaults. In

today's notice, DOE requests comment

on inclusion of potential costs related to

size constraints of transformers installed

in vaults. DOE also is considering an

additional option for the final efficiency

levels for liquid-immersed distribution

transformers and by this notice invites

public comment on this additional

option.

DATES : DOE will accept written

comments, data, and information in

response to this notice, but no later than

March 12, 2007. See section VI, "Public

Participation," of this notice for details.

ADDRESSES : Any comments submitted

must identify the Notice of Data

Availability for Distribution

Transformers Energy Conservation

Standards, and provide the docket

number EE-RM/STD-00-550 and/or

Regulatory Information Number (RIN)

1904-ABO8. Comments may be

submitted using any of the following

methods:

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 147

#147 

6186 Federal Register/Vol. 72, No. 27/Friday, February 9, 2007/Proposed Rules 

The alternative assumptions for the 

state or regional distribution of 

condensing furnaces in the base case are 

likely to have some effect on other facets 

of DOE's analysis, but none of these 

other effects are likely to be significant. 

While this alternative analysis of the 

possible impacts of regional standards 

does not have any significant effects on 

DOE's assessment ofthe benefits and 

burdens associated with the trial 

standards levels for national standards 

it could affect stakeholder assessments' 

of possible alternatives to a national 

standard. For this reason, DOE 

concluded that it should present the 

alternative results for stakeholder 

consideration and comment. 

B. Installation Cost Differences 

At the October 2006 public meeting, 

ACEEE requested further clarification of 

the new installation cost increases 

applied in the NOPR analysis for oilfired furnaces rated between 82 percent 

and 83 percent AFUE. (Public Meeting 

Transcript, No. 107.6 at p. 121) 

In the Advance Notice of Public 

Rulemaking (ANOPR), DOE calculated 

the installation costs for oil-fired 

furnaces by assuming that upgraded 

Category III venting systems would be 

needed to prevent corrosion in 100 

percent of the installations rated 84 

percent AFUE and above (as explained 

in section 6.5.5 in the ANOPR TSD). 

DOE presented these installation costs 

at the ANOPR public meeting and 

received the following comments from 

ACEEE and GAMA. 

GAMA commented that Brookhaven 

National Lab (BNL) had done an 

extensive amount of work on oil venting 

and that DOE should ask BNL for its 

information as a data resource for oilfired furnace venting systems. (Public 

Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at p. 112.) 

ACEEE commented that there are oilfired boilers rated 86 percent AFUE and 

oil furnaces rated 84 percent AFUE that 

have significant market share. ACEEE 

recommended that DOE reexamine the 

application of Category III vents at 

efficiency levels rated below 84 percent 

AFUE, determine at which efficiency 

level Category III vents are required 100 

percent of the time, and apply some 

type of phase-in of the venting systems, 

rather than a single-step function as 

DOE had done in the ANOPR analysis. 

(Public Meeting Transcript, No. 59.8 at 

p.113.) 

In response to the comments both 

from GAMA and ACEEE, DOE further 

examined oil-fired furnace venting 

systems and consulted with BNL on 

furnace installation requirements. BNL 

indicated that some fraction of the 

installations rated at 83 percent AFUE 

may require Category III venting 

systems. As a result of its consultations 

with BNL, DOE revised its ventingmodel assumptions, which 

characterized the rate of required 

Category III venting systems, from using 

a step function to a more linear, "phasein" function, which assigns a Category 

III-requirement rate of 25 percent for oilfired furnaces rated at 83 percent AFUE, 

and gradually increases the percentage 

of installations using Category III 

venting systems for oil-fired furnaces 

rated above 83 percent AFUE. DOE's 

approach is further detailed and 

explained in section 6.5.6 ofthe NOPR 

TSD for oil-fired furnaces. DOE used a 

per-installation cost adder for Category 

III venting systems that does not change 

with the AFUE level of oil-fired 

furnaces. It is the change in the assumed 

frequency of installations requiring 

Category III venting systems which 

results in the cost differences. Table 2, 

below, compares the DOE's ANOPR and 

NOPR assumptions about the fraction of 

the oil furnaces that require Category III 

venting systems at certain efficiency 

levels: 

TABLE 2.-FRACTION OF THE GIL FURNACES REQUIRING CATEGORY III 

VENTING SYSTEMS 

Efficiency level ANOPR 

(percent) 

NOPR 

(percent) 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket Number: EE-RM/STD-OO-550j 

RIN 1904-AB08 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Commercial Equipment: Distribution 

Transformers Energy Conservation 

Standards 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) issued a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) for liquid-immersed 

and medium-voltage, dry-type 

distribution transformers under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(EPCA). In response to this notice, 

stakeholders commented that DOE's 

standard may prevent or render 

impractical the replacement of 

distribution transformers in certain 

space-constrained (e.g., vault) 

installations. Some stakeholders 

suggested that DOE's analysis of the 

benefits and burdens of the proposed 

standard should take into consideration 

the potential impacts of replacing 

transformers in space-constrained 

82% and below .... . 

83% ..................... .. 

o 

o 

100 

100 

100 

o vaults. In the Notice of Proposed 

25 Rulemaking (NOPR), DOE factored 

84% ...................... . 

85% ...................... . 

86% and above .. .. 

DOE welcomes comment on its 

assumptions for use of Category III 

venting systems for oil-fired furnaces. 

50 weight-dependent installation costs in 

the analysis, but did not specifically 

address potential costs related to 

transformers installed in vaults. In 

75 

100 

today's notice, DOE requests comment 

on inclusion of potential costs related to 

size constraints of transformers installed 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 

2007. 

in vaults. DOE also is considering an 

additional option for the final efficiency 

levels for liquid-immersed distribution 

Alexander A. Karsner, 

Assistant Secretary Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. E7-2167 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 

transformers and by this notice invites 

public comment on this additional 

option. 

DATES: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information in 

response to this notice, but no later than 

March 12, 2007. See section VI, "Public 

Participation," of this notice for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the Notice of Data 

Availability for Distribution 

Transformers Energy Conservation 

Standards, and provide the docket 

number EE-RM/STD-00-550 and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

1904-AB08. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: