This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

67037 

Vol. 76, No. 210 

Monday, October 31, 2011 

1 DOE Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0011, 

Comment 16. 

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 effective date and 

compliance dates for direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) published a direct final 

rule to establish amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces and residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps in the 

Federal Register on June 27, 2011. DOE 

has determined that the adverse 

comments received in response to the 

direct final rule do not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. Therefore, DOE 

provides this notice confirming 

adoption of the energy conservation 

standards for residential furnaces and 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps established in the direct 

final rule and announcing the effective 

date of those standards. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on June 27, 2011 (76 FR 37408) became 

effective on October 25, 2011. 

Compliance with the standards in the 

direct final rule will be required on May 

1, 2013 for non-weatherized furnaces 

and on January 1, 2015 for weatherized 

furnaces and central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. 

ADDRESSES: 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. 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. 

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. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov or 

Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments or 

view hard copies of the docket, contact 

Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Authority and Rulemaking 

Background 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act of 1975 (EPCA; 42 U.S.C. 6291– 

6309, as codified), as amended, 

authorizes DOE to issue a direct final 

rule (DFR) 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 of Energy 

(Secretary). EPCA further requires that a 

statement contain recommendations 

with respect to an energy 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 

conservation standard must be 

published simultaneously with the final 

rule, and DOE must provide a public 

comment period of at least 110 days on 

the direct final rule. 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 

reasons why the direct final rule was 

withdrawn. Id. 

During the rulemaking proceeding to 

consider amending energy conservation 

standards for residential furnaces and 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps, DOE received the 

‘‘Agreement on Legislative and 

Regulatory Strategy for Amending 

Federal Energy Efficiency Standards, 

Test Procedures, Metrics and Building 

Code Provisions for Residential Central 

Air Conditioners, Heat Pumps, 

Weatherized and Non-Weatherized 

Furnaces and Related Matters’’ (the 

‘‘Joint Petition’’ or ‘‘Consensus 

Agreement’’), a comment submitted by 

representatives of the American Heating 

and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 

American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), Alliance to 

Save Energy (ASE), Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), Appliance 

Standard Awareness Project (ASAP), 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (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, Rheem 

Manufacturing Company, and Trane 

Residential (collectively, the ‘‘Joint 

Petitioners’’). This collective set of 

comments 1 recommends specific energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces, central air conditioners, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

heat pumps that, in the commenters’ 

view, would satisfy the EPCA 

requirements at 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

Numerous interested parties, including 

signatories of the Consensus Agreement, 

as well as other parties, expressed 

support for DOE adoption of the 

Consensus Agreement both at a public 

hearing and in written comments on the 

furnaces and central air conditioners 

rulemakings. 

After careful consideration of the 

Consensus Agreement, the Secretary 

determined that it was submitted by 

interested persons who are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

on this matter. DOE noted in the direct 

final rule that Congress provided some 

guidance within the statute itself by 

specifying that representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates are 

relevant parties to any consensus 

recommendation. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A)) As delineated above, the 

consensus agreement was signed and 

submitted by a broad cross-section of 

the manufacturers who produce the 

subject products, their trade 

associations, and environmental, energy 

efficiency, and consumer advocacy 

organizations. One State entity was a 

party to the Consensus Agreement, and 

no State expressed any opposition to the 

Consensus Agreement from the time of 

its submission to DOE through the close 

of the comment period on the direct 

final rule. Moreover, DOE stated in the 

direct final rule that it does not interpret 

the statute as requiring absolute 

agreement among all interested parties 

before DOE may proceed with issuance 

of a direct final rule. By explicit 

language of the statute, the Secretary has 

discretion to determine when a joint 

recommendation for an energy or water 

conservation standard has met the 

requirement for representativeness (i.e., 

‘‘as determined by the Secretary’’). 

Accordingly, DOE determined that the 

consensus agreement was made and 

submitted by interested persons fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the 

Secretary must also determine whether 

a jointly submitted recommendation for 

an energy or water conservation 

standard is in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as 

applicable. As stated in the direct final 

rule, this determination is exactly the 

type of analysis DOE conducts 

whenever it considers potential energy 

conservation standards pursuant to 

EPCA. DOE applies the same principles 

to any consensus recommendations it 

may receive to satisfy its statutory 

obligation to ensure that any energy 

conservation standard that it adopts 

achieves the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified and 

will result in significant conservation of 

energy. Upon review, the Secretary 

determined that the Consensus 

Agreement submitted in the instant 

rulemaking comports with the standardsetting criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Accordingly, the Consensus 

Agreement levels, included as trial 

standard level (TSL) 4 for both 

residential furnaces and residential 

central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

were adopted as the amended standard 

levels in the direct final rule. 

In sum, as the relevant statutory 

criteria were satisfied, the Secretary 

adopted the amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces and residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps set forth 

in the direct final rule. These standards 

are set forth in Table I.1 and Table I.2. 

The standards apply to all products 

listed in Table I.1 and Table I.2 that are 

manufactured in, or imported into, the 

United States on or after May 1, 2013 for 

non-weatherized gas and oil-fired 

furnaces and mobile home furnaces and 

on or after January 1, 2015 for 

weatherized gas furnaces and central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. These 

compliance dates were set forth in the 

direct final rule published in the 

Federal Register on June 27, 2011. 76 

FR 37408. For a detailed discussion of 

DOE’s analysis of the benefits and 

burdens of the amended standards 

pursuant to the criteria set forth in 

EPCA, please see the direct final rule. 76 

FR 37408 (June 27, 2011). 

As required by EPCA, DOE also 

simultaneously published a NOPR 

proposing the identical standard levels 

contained in the direct final rule. As 

discussed in this section, DOE 

considered whether any adverse 

comment received during the 110-day 

comment period following the direct 

final rule provided a reasonable basis 

for withdrawal of the direct final rule 

and continuation of this rulemaking 

under the NOPR. As noted in the direct 

final rule, it is the substance, rather than 

the quantity, of comments that will 

ultimately determine whether a direct 

final rule will be withdrawn. To this 

end, DOE weighs the substance of any 

adverse comment(s) received against the 

anticipated benefits of the Consensus 

Agreement and the likelihood that 

further consideration of the comment(s) 

would change the results of the 

rulemaking. DOE notes that to the extent 

an adverse comment had been 

previously raised and addressed in the 

rulemaking proceeding, such a 

submission will not typically provide a 

basis for withdrawal of a direct final 

rule. 

TABLE I.1—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Product class National standards 

(percent) 

Northern region ** 

standards 

(percent) 

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 ‡‡ .......................................................................................................................... AFUE = 75 ............. AFUE = 75. 

Weatherized oil-fired ‡‡ ........................................................................................................................... AFUE = 78 ............. AFUE = 78. 

Electric‡‡ ................................................................................................................................................. AFUE = 78 ............. AFUE = 78. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67039 

Product class National standards Southeastern 

region †† Southwestern region ‡ standards 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps † 

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 systems ......................... SEER = 13 ............ SEER = 13 ............ SEER = 13. 

HSPF = 7.7 ........... HSPF = 7.7 ........... HSPF = 7.7. 

Space-constrained products—air conditioners ‡‡ SEER = 12 ............ SEER = 12 ............ SEER = 12. 

Space-constrained products—heat pumps ‡‡ ....... SEER = 12 ............ SEER = 12 ............ SEER = 12. 

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. 

† 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. 

†† 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. 

‡ The Southwestern region for central air conditioners and heat pumps contains the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico. 

‡‡ DOE is not amending energy conservation standards for these product classes in this rule. 

TABLE I.2—AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP

STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE * 

Product class Standby mode and off 

mode 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 Off mode standard 

levels †† 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps †† 

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 conditioners ......................................................................................................................................... PW,OFF = 30 watts. 

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, DOE is proposing 

to change the nomenclature for the standby mode and off mode power consumption metrics for furnaces from those in the furnace and boiler 

test procedure final rule published on October 20, 2010. 75 FR 64621. DOE is renaming the PSB and POFF metrics as PW,SB and PW,OFF, respectively. However, the substance of these metrics remains unchanged. 

** 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. 

† PW,OFF is off mode electrical power consumption for central air conditioners and heat pumps. 

†† DOE is not adopting 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

2Philadelphia Gas Works, Nicor, Piedmont, 

Consolidated Edison of New York, NW Natural Gas 

Company, Atmos Energy and Alabama Gas 

submitted comments expressing general support for 

the comments by the American Gas Association 

(AGA). (Philadelphia Gas Works, No. 23 at pp. 1– 

2; Nicor, No. 32 at p. 1; Piedmont, No. 32 at p. 1; 

Consolidated Edison of New York, No. 32 at p. 1; 

NW Natural Gas Company, No. 32 at p. 1; Atmos 

Energy, No. 32 at p. 1; Alabama Gas, No. 32 at p. 

1) 

II. Comments Concerning Withdrawal 

of the Direct Final Rule 

A. General Comments 

1. Joint Petition 

A number of commenters stated that 

DOE did not consider the views of all 

relevant parties, including appliance 

installers and energy suppliers. Some 

commenters also stated that DOE did 

not explain its process for determining 

whether the Joint Petition was 

submitted by relevant parties, including 

a determination of which parties are 

‘‘not’’ relevant. 

Specifically, UGI Distributors stated 

that there was not sufficient 

participation by interested persons. 

(UGI, No. 22 at p. 10) The American 

Public Gas Association (APGA) 

contended that the Consensus 

Agreement was not based on the most 

relevant sectors of the industry. (APGA, 

No. 24 at pp. 12–13) Metropolitan 

Utilities District of Omaha Nebraska 

(MUD) stated that the Consensus 

Agreement failed to represent consumer 

interests, because the Joint Petitioners 

(who submitted the Consensus 

Agreement) were comprised primarily 

of appliance manufacturers and various 

energy conservation groups, not 

individuals who deal with installation 

and inspection of these appliances on a 

daily basis. (MUD, No. 29 at p. 1) AGL 

Resources (AGL) commented that the 

petition did not include all relevant 

parties as required by the legislation 

granting authority for DFRs, and it 

recommended DOE should withdraw 

the DFR in favor of the NOPR process. 

Specifically, AGL cited appliance 

installers and energy suppliers as not 

being involved, noting that appliance 

installers could have provided more 

complete information regarding 

installation costs and that energy 

suppliers could have provided 

important information on consumer 

impacts. (AGL, No. 31 at p. 3) Heating, 

Air-conditioning and Refrigeration 

Distributors International (HARDI) 

stated that the Consensus Agreement 

excludes the input of U.S. small 

business owners, who represent twothirds of the heating, ventilation, and 

air-conditioning (HVAC) supply chain 

and 32,264 HVAC contracting and 

distribution companies and branches 

nationwide. (HARDI, No. 39 at p. 1) The 

Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America (ACCA) stated that the 

Consensus Agreement represents the 

view of a minority of stakeholders, is an 

unsuitable use of the direct final rule 

process, and directly and adversely 

impacts several stakeholders not 

included in the Consensus Agreement. 

(ACCA, No. 50 at p. 2) 

Conversely, the Joint Comment from 

ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, ASE, NPCC, 

NEEP, the Consumer Federation of 

America (CFA), and EarthJustice (Joint 

Comment) supported DOE’s 

determination of what constitutes an 

agreement that is submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. (Joint Comment, No. 47 at p. 2) 

These stakeholders contend that DOE 

has properly exercised its authority to 

issue a direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(A). 

As explained above in section I, EPCA 

authorizes DOE to issue a direct final 

rule establishing an energy conservation 

standard on receipt of a statement that, 

in relevant part, is 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. While 

providing some guidance by specifying 

that representatives of manufacturers of 

covered products, States, and efficiency 

advocates are relevant parties to any 

consensus recommendation, EPCA 

affords DOE significant discretion in 

determining whether this requirement 

has been met. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)) 

DOE notes that EPCA does not require 

that ‘‘all’’ relevant parties be parties to 

any Consensus Agreement, nor does it 

allow a small number of interested 

parties to exercise a veto power over the 

DFR process. EPCA also does not 

require DOE to specify parties that it 

determines are ‘‘not relevant’’ to any 

Consensus Agreement. 

In the direct final rule, DOE explained 

how the Consensus Agreement met the 

requirement that it be submitted jointly 

by interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of 

view. DOE noted that the Consensus 

Agreement was signed and submitted by 

a broad cross-section of the 

manufacturers who produce the subject 

products, their trade associations, and 

environmental and energy efficiency 

organizations. DOE further noted that 

one State entity was a party to the 

Consensus Agreement, and no State 

expressed any opposition to it. States 

also did not file any adverse comments 

during the comment period for the 

direct final rule. 

Moreover, DOE stated in the direct 

final rule that it does not interpret the 

statute as requiring absolute agreement 

among all interested parties before DOE 

may proceed with issuance of a direct 

final rule. By explicit language of the 

statute, the Secretary has considerable 

discretion to determine when a joint 

recommendation for an energy or water 

conservation standard has met the 

requirement for representativeness (i.e., 

‘‘as determined by the Secretary’’). DOE 

acknowledges that appliance installers 

and energy suppliers may also be 

relevant parties within the meaning of 

42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), but does not 

believe that the existence of other 

potentially relevant parties indicates 

that the Consensus Agreement was not 

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). 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

affirms its conclusion in the direct final 

rule that the Joint Petition satisfies the 

requirement of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) that 

it be 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. 

2. Comments on Withdrawal of the 

Direct Final Rule 

As explained more fully below, DOE 

has determined that none of the 

comments requesting withdrawal, taken 

as a whole or individually, may provide 

a reasonable basis for the Secretary to 

withdraw the direct final rule. In setting 

efficiency standards such as those for 

furnaces, DOE uses a publicly-available, 

forward-looking model to evaluate the 

economic impact of several technically 

feasible energy efficiency levels 

pursuant to the criteria specified in 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o). DOE runs its analysis 

starting at the most efficient 

technologically feasible level through 

progressively lower efficiency levels 

until its finds the most efficient trial 

standard level (TSL) that is 

economically justified. DOE has made 

its model and the data used in its model 

public on its Web site. 

The American Gas Association 

(AGA) 2 and APGA submitted comments 

arguing that DOE used inappropriate 

data for several parameters in its lifecycle cost (LCC) model for furnaces, 

including future natural gas prices, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67041 

3A Category I vented appliance is an appliance 

that operates with a non-positive vent static 

pressure and with a vent gas temperature that 

avoids excessive condensate production in the vent. 

(National Fuel Gas Code, NFPA54/ANSI Z223.1, 

American Gas Association, 2006) 

lifetime of non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, installation costs, and future 

consumer costs for furnaces. DOE 

explains below why, contrary to these 

comments, it used appropriate data for 

each such parameter. 

However, even if the commenters 

were correct with respect to all the data 

issues they raised, that would still not 

result in an efficiency standard for 

furnaces that is different than the one in 

the DFR. In response to the comments 

from AGA and APGA, DOE re-ran its 

model using the data and assumptions 

provided by those organizations in their 

comments. DOE’s analytical results, 

which it has made public on its Web 

site, showed that the standard set for 

furnaces in the DFR (TSL 4) still has a 

positive average LCC savings, even 

using all the commenters’ data and 

assumptions. Because the commenters’ 

objections, even if they were all correct, 

a scenario DOE does not believe likely, 

would not have resulted in a change to 

the efficiency standard for furnaces, 

they could not possibly provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

rule. 

In their comments, AGA and APGA 

assert that, taken together, their data 

assumptions cause the standard for 

furnaces in the DFR to have an average 

LCC savings that is slightly negative in 

the northern region of the United States. 

However, they have not provided 

sufficient information to allow DOE to 

replicate their results. As indicated 

above, DOE has made its spreadsheet 

model publicly available on its Web site 

and no commenter—including AGA and 

APGA—has questioned the 

methodology underlying the 

spreadsheet model (as opposed to the 

data used in the model). Therefore, 

notwithstanding the results assertedly 

reached by AGA and APGA using DOE’s 

model, DOE has concluded that its 

model (which remains unchallenged in 

terms of its methodology) supports the 

efficiency standard in the DFR, even 

using the data and assumptions 

provided by the adverse commenters. 

Further, as explained in the DFR (76 

FR 37524), the consensus agreement 

represents the effort of diverse 

stakeholders representing widely varied 

interested parties to negotiate their 

differences, reach common ground, and 

expedite the rulemaking process. Those 

efforts, and the benefits they entail, 

were properly considered by the 

Secretary under 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII). DOE has 

encouraged stakeholders in all areas to 

work together to propose consensus 

agreements that can lead to DFRs where 

appropriate. Here, the benefits of the 

consensus agreement, reflected in the 

DFR, include additional energy savings 

resulting from accelerated compliance 

dates for covered products, as well as an 

increased likelihood for regulatory 

compliance and a decreased risk of 

litigation. The Secretary is cognizant of 

those benefits in analyzing the adverse 

comments, and in determining whether 

any of those comments may provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

DFR under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

B. Comments on Standards for 

Residential Furnaces 

1. The Direct Final Rule Would Cause 

Certain Gas Furnaces in the Northern 

Region to Become Unavailable in 

Violation of the Act 

The American Gas Association (AGA) 

stated that: (1) Establishing a minimum 

efficiency standard of 90-percent AFUE 

for the northern region would prevent 

the installation in that region of a 

Category I 3 gas furnace; (2) the regional 

standard, therefore, would necessarily 

result in the unavailability in the 

northern region of a covered product 

type with the performance 

characteristics of a non-positive vent 

static pressure, non-condensing (i.e., 

Category I) gas furnace; (3) the Act 

prohibits DOE from prescribing a 

standard that is likely to result in the 

unavailability in the U.S. in any covered 

product type (or class) of performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 5) 

AGA further noted that: (1) In light of 

the requirements of the gas codes, a 

Category I non-positive vent, noncondensing gas furnace cannot be 

replaced with a Category IV positive 

vent, condensing gas furnace without 

addressing the venting and condensate 

disposal issues; (2) accordingly, the 

performance features of a Category I gas 

furnace (including its ability to be 

vented through a chimney, common 

vented with other gas appliances, and 

common vented in multi-unit, 

multistory housing, as well as its ability 

to vent without having to address 

disposal of flue gas condensate) provide 

tangible and cost-saving benefits to 

consumers justifying separate minimum 

efficiency standards for Category I and 

Category IV gas furnaces. (AGA, No. 27 

at p. 6) AGL made comments similar to 

those of AGA. (AGL, No. 31 at p. 6) 

AGA contends that DOE should 

withdraw the direct final rule and 

proceed with the notice of proposed 

rulemaking in this proceeding to 

consider establishing separate standards 

for Category I and Category IV gas 

furnaces based on their different venting 

and condensing characteristics. (AGA, 

No. 27 at p. 6) 

Conversely, AHRI stated that the 

furnace design dictates what types of 

venting systems are acceptable, not the 

converse, and any suggestion that a 

similar natural draft furnace must be 

provided to replace an old natural draft 

furnace in order to maintain a unique 

utility of the furnace reverses the 

relationship between the furnace and 

the vent system. AHRI also stated that 

the function of any furnace is to provide 

heat for residences, and DOE is required 

to address the utility or unique features 

of appliances and equipment only. 

AHRI noted that a new gas furnace 

using a different type of venting system 

can be installed as a replacement 

without changing the occupants’ 

comfort level or the heating ability of 

the furnace, and that the venting system 

concerns are simply a matter of cost and 

the existence of an appropriate pathway 

for the venting system, which are issues 

that have been analyzed by DOE and 

others in the past. (AHRI, No. 46 at pp. 

3–4) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

notes that, in evaluating and 

establishing energy conservation 

standards, EPCA directs DOE to divide 

covered products into classes based on 

differences including the type of energy 

used, capacity, or other performancerelated feature that justifies a different 

standard for products having such 

feature. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In deciding 

whether a feature justifies a different 

standard, DOE must consider factors 

such as the utility of the feature to users. 

Id. In evaluating AGA’s suggestion to 

consider separate product classes for 

furnaces using Category I and Category 

IV venting, DOE considered the utility 

to consumers of being able to use one 

venting type versus the other. DOE 

believes that the utility derived by 

consumers from furnaces is in the form 

of the space heating function that the 

furnace performs. DOE notes that a 

furnace requiring Category I venting and 

a furnace requiring Category IV venting 

are both capable of providing the same 

heating function to the consumer, and, 

thus, provide virtually the same utility 

with respect to that primary function. 

AGA contends that the ability to vent a 

furnace with Category I venting 

provides furnace consumers with a 

special utility, due to the cost-saving 

benefits as compared to having to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

4U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Information 

Administration, Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey: 2005 Public Use Data Files, 2008. http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recspubuse05/

pubuse05.html. 

5See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/residential_

furnaces_central_ac_hp_direct_final_rule_tsd.html. 

retrofit a venting system to 

accommodate a Category IV furnace. 

DOE does not agree with the 

characterization of reduced costs 

associated with Category I venting in 

certain installations as a special utility, 

but rather, it is an economic impact on 

consumers that must be considered in 

the rulemaking’s cost-benefit analysis. 

Accordingly, DOE did not establish 

separate product classes for furnaces 

utilizing Category I and Category IV 

venting systems, but instead considered 

the additional costs of Category IV 

venting in its analyses performed for the 

DFR. 

2. Causing the Unavailability of 

Category I Gas Furnaces in the Northern 

Region May Have Serious Adverse 

Consequences for Consumers and the 

Environment 

AGA stated that: (1) Causing the 

unavailability of Category I gas furnaces 

in the northern region has the potential 

to increase health and safety risks due 

to improper venting; (2) customers faced 

with having to replace an existing 

Category I non-condensing gas furnace 

with a Category IV condensing gas 

furnace may choose to repair the 

existing furnace to avoid expensive 

venting and condensate disposal 

modifications associated with the new 

furnace; (3) delayed replacement of 

equipment past their useful life has the 

potential to increase energy 

consumption and environmental 

impacts. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 6) AGL, 

CenterPoint Energy, Metropolitan 

Utilities District (MUD), National Fuel 

Gas Distribution Corporation (NFGD), 

and Questar Gas made comments 

similar to those of AGA. (AGL, No. 31 

at p. 5; CenterPoint Energy, No. 33 at p. 

2; MUD, No. 29 at p. 1; NFGD, No. 28 

at p. 1; Questar Gas, No. 48 at p. 1) 

On the other hand, AHRI stated that 

the concerns about safety when 

establishing a standard at 90-percent 

annual fuel utilization efficiency 

(AFUE) are no different that those 

already present in situations where 

consumers do not repair faulty 

equipment or perform unsafe home 

repairs. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 4) National 

Grid stated that the proposed standards 

would help their customers achieve 

their heating needs while using less 

energy and saving money. (National 

Grid, No. 30 at p. 1) 

In response, proper venting of a 

condensing furnace, which is guided by 

the National Fuel Gas Code and, in 

many cases, by local building codes, is 

designed to alleviate health and safety 

risks. DOE notes that contractors 

currently have a legal responsibility to 

perform repairs according to the 

requirements of applicable codes. 

Problems associated with contractors 

not following proper procedures could 

occur in the case of replacing a gas 

furnace with a non-condensing furnace 

as well. 

Failure of the heat exchanger or 

combustion system is the event that is 

most likely to create a need for 

replacement. DOE believes that 

consumers faced with a furnace 

replacement situation would be unlikely 

to opt for repair because of the high cost 

of replacing these components, along 

with the possibility that further 

expensive repairs might be needed in 

the near future. Therefore, DOE believes 

that delayed replacement, and the 

associated environmental impacts, is 

unlikely. 

AGA stated that customers that 

replace a Category I gas furnace with a 

Category IV gas furnace may orphan a 

common-vented gas water heater. It 

could lead to improperly vented water 

heaters, which may pose serious health 

and safety risks. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 7) 

AGL, CenterPoint Energy and MUD 

made comments similar to those of 

AGA. (AGL, No. 31 at pp. 6–7; 

CenterPoint Energy, No. 33 at p. 5; 

MUD, No. 29 at p. 1) 

AHRI stated that: (1) In the past ten 

years, nearly 10 million condensing 

furnaces have been sold in the U.S., of 

which about 7.5 million units were 

replacement installations; (2) some of 

those must have resulted in ‘‘orphaned’’ 

gas water heaters; (3) there is no 

evidence from the field over that time 

that consumers are incurring a higher 

safety risk because they chose to not 

address the water heater’s venting 

system when the new condensing 

furnace was installed. (AHRI, No. 46 at 

p. 4) 

In response, proper venting of an 

orphaned water heater would alleviate 

the risks mentioned by the commenters. 

DOE again notes that proper venting of 

an orphaned water heater is guided by 

the National Fuel Gas Code and, in 

many cases, by local building codes. 

The same points made above about 

contractors apply in this case as well. 

DOE also notes that the above comment 

by AHRI suggests that serious health 

and safety risks are unlikely and that the 

service industry already has in place 

procedures for identifying and 

rendering unsafe equipment inoperable 

(red tag) to safeguard the consumer. In 

addition, DOE believes that through 

training and experience installing 

condensing furnaces, installers will 

become increasingly aware and skilled 

in the treatment of orphaned water 

heaters. 

AGA argued that the unavailability of 

Category I, non-condensing gas furnaces 

could lead customers to make lessefficient appliance choices. Specifically, 

AGA stated that fuel switching or 

different initial fuel choice could occur 

where customers select: (1) Electric 

furnaces instead of gas furnaces; (2) 

electric heat pumps instead of gas 

furnaces, especially where central air 

conditioning is already installed; (3) 

electric water heaters instead of gas 

water heaters; or (4) electric heat pumps 

and electric water heaters instead of gas 

furnaces and gas water heaters. AGA 

stated that by installing electric 

appliances rather than natural gas 

appliances, consumers are likely to pay 

more in annual operating costs while 

contributing to increased total energy 

consumption and environmental 

emissions when measured on a source 

or full-fuel-cycle basis. (AGA, No. 27 at 

p. 7) 

For the direct final rule, DOE did not 

explicitly quantify the potential for fuel 

switching from gas furnaces to electric 

heating equipment, based upon the 

following reasoning. DOE reviewed the 

2005 Residential Energy Consumption 

Survey (RECS) 4 to assess the type of 

space-heating system utilized by 

consumers as a function of house 

heating load. Gas furnaces are primarily 

utilized in households with high 

heating loads, while electric space 

heating systems are almost exclusively 

used in households with low heating 

loads. Generally, this is because the 

operating costs of electric space heating 

systems are relatively high due to the 

price of electricity, so using an electric 

system in a cold climate is significantly 

more expensive than using a gas 

furnace. Based on the above finding, 

DOE inferred that few consumers in the 

northern region would be likely to 

switch to electric space heating systems 

as a result of the amended standard for 

gas furnaces. 

In addition, replacing a gas furnace 

with electric space heating incurs 

substantial costs, because of the 

complexity involved in modifying the 

installation. As described in appendix 

9–B of the DFR technical support 

document (TSD),5 for a household with 

a gas furnace to switch to electric space 

heating, a separate circuit up to 120- 

amps would be needed, depending on 

the house heating design requirements. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67043 

6Costs estimated using 2010 RS Means 

Residential Cost Data. (RS Means Company Inc., RS 

Means Residential Cost Data. 29th Annual Edition 

ed. 2010: Kingston, MA). 

The cost to install such a circuit would 

vary from approximately $293 to $608, 

and some installations would require a 

new panel board to serve this higher 

amp circuit, at a cost estimated at $985 

to $2,625.6 Given the initial costs 

involved in replacing a gas furnace with 

electric space heating, combined with 

the much higher operating costs of an 

electric heating system, DOE believes 

that the approach used for the DFR is 

reasonable. 

With regard to initial fuel choice in 

new homes, DOE found fuel switching 

not to apply because the amended 

standard would not significantly change 

the situation currently faced by 

builders. On average, there is no total 

installed price differential between an 

80-percent AFUE gas furnace and a 

90-percent AFUE gas furnace, so DOE 

reasoned that builders are unlikely to 

alter their current behavior on the basis 

of amended energy conservation 

standards. 

AGA stated that: (1) Replacing a noncondensing gas furnace with a 

condensing gas furnace may be 

infeasible for some homes where sidewall venting is not an option (e.g., in 

row houses, historic homes, or multistory housing complexes), may be costprohibitive in other homes, may lead to 

orphaned water heaters, and, in all 

cases, would increase installation costs 

and require trained installers to ensure 

proper venting of all combustion 

appliances.; (2) DOE’s analysis in this 

proceeding significantly underestimates 

the costs associated with installation of 

condensing gas furnaces that consumers 

would actually incur, both as a result of 

underestimating specific cost items and 

of failing to include specific cost items. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 7) MUD made a 

similar comment. (MUD, No. 29 at pp. 

1–2) Questar Gas also stated that with 

many older homes and multi-family 

units, the venting modifications and 

condensate disposal requirements 

would be cost-prohibitive and, in some 

cases, impossible. (Questar Gas, No. 48 

at p. 1) 

DOE acknowledges that there may be 

increased technical complexity 

associated with replacing a noncondensing gas furnace with a 

condensing gas furnace, but DOE 

disagrees with AGA’s contention that 

replacing a non-condensing gas furnace 

with a condensing gas furnace may be 

infeasible for some homes where sidewall venting is not an option. Many 

condensing furnaces are vented using 

vertical vents, which provides an 

additional option to address cases 

where side-wall access in not available. 

Moreover, AGA has not demonstrated 

that trained installers are unavailable in 

the marketplace to handle installations 

under the amended standards at the 

time of compliance. Condensing 

furnaces have been available for more 

than 20 years, and in the north 

condensing furnaces represent 68 

percent of the market. The large scale of 

installations demonstrates the 

availability of trained installers to 

handle installations under the amended 

standards. 

Regarding AGA’s second point, DOE 

believes that it has included all relevant 

cost items. As further described below 

in section II.B.7, DOE’s estimates of 

specific cost items are similar to those 

provided by AGA in several instances. 

Where they are lower, DOE believes that 

the available evidence (discussed 

below) supports the costs used by DOE. 

3. DOE’s Regional Standard Harms 

Consumers 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE’s analysis 

shows that the 90-percent AFUE 

standard for the northern region would 

impose a net cost on 10 percent of 

consumers, have no impact on 71.4 

percent of consumers, and have a net 

benefit for 18.6 percent of consumers; 

(2) the fact that a significant percentage 

of customers will experience a net cost 

reflects the substantial costs associated 

with replacing a Category I noncondensing gas furnace with a Category 

IV condensing gas furnace; (3) DOE has 

failed to explain why the fact that some 

consumers will see a net benefit justifies 

imposing net costs on other consumers. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 10) 

In selecting the standards in the DFR, 

DOE needed to determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens to the greatest extent 

practicable, in light of the seven 

statutory factors provided by EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) Impacts on 

consumers are one of those factors. 

Under the amended standard for nonweatherized gas furnaces, nearly twice 

as many consumers would have a net 

benefit as would have a net cost. 

Further, the standard would provide 

average LCC savings of $155 and a 

median payback period of 10.1 years. 

DOE believes that on balance, the 

consumer impacts of the amended 

energy conservation standard qualify as 

positive impacts within the context DOE 

has used in past standards rulemakings. 

4. DOE’s Analysis of Natural Gas Prices 

Is Inadequate 

AGA and AGL stated that the direct 

final rule did not consider the impact 

that the regional standard would have 

on natural gas prices. (AGA, No. 27 at 

p. 11; AGL, No. 31 at 5) DOE did 

consider the impact of the chosen 

standards on natural gas prices, as 

described in section IV.G.6 of the DFR. 

As described in chapter 14 of the DFR 

TSD, the projected impact on natural 

gas prices is very small (0.14 to 0.21 

percent). Because the impact is so small, 

DOE did not use a separate price 

forecast for the selected TSL. 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE has not used 

the most recent version of the Energy 

Information Administration’s (EIA) 

Annual Energy Outlook (i.e., AEO 2011) 

in support of the direct rule; (2) DOE 

has not explained why it could not have 

revised its analysis based on the most 

recent data; (3) EIA’s AEO 2011 forecast 

of residential natural gas prices through 

2030 is substantially reduced from the 

2010 forecast; (4) EIA’s price forecast 

has been trending downward over the 

last several years; (5) DOE’s use of the 

AEO 2010 Reference Case in analyzing 

life-cycle-cost savings of gas furnaces 

overstates potential cost savings. (AGA, 

No. 27 at p. 11) APGA and MUD also 

objected to DOE’s use of the AEO 2010 

rather than the AEO 2011 projections. 

(APGA, No 24 at p. 2; MUD, No. 29 at 

p. 2) 

In contrast, the joint comment from 

ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA, ASE, 

NPCC, NEEP, and EJ (Joint Comment) 

stated that the furnace standards are 

cost-effective, even if AEO 2011 price 

trends are used in the LCC analysis. The 

Joint Comment noted that additional 

analysis published by DOE in response 

to a request from American Public Gas 

Association (APGA) showed average 

positive LCC savings for both 

replacement and new construction 

installations even if lower natural gas 

prices are used in the analysis. (Joint 

Comment, No. 47 at p. 4–5) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

Department uses the latest available 

version of AEO that is possible under its 

rulemaking schedule. The AEO 2011 

was not available at the time the original 

DFR analysis was conducted. However, 

in response to comments on the DFR, 

DOE evaluated the impact of using the 

AEO 2011 price forecast on the LCC 

results. In this case, the average LCC 

benefit decreases from $155 (using the 

AEO 2010 forecast) to $127. 

AGA contends that: (1) DOE should 

use a marginal price analysis when 

evaluating the impact of natural gas 

prices on the life-cycle-cost savings 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

7The ‘‘city gate’’ is generally the point where 

natural gas is transferred from an interstate or 

intrastate pipeline to a local natural gas utility. The 

‘‘city gate price’’ is the sales price of the natural gas 

at this point; the price reflects the wholesale/ 

wellhead price, as well as the cost of transporting 

the natural gas by pipeline to the citygate. 

8Chaitkin, S., J. McMahon, C. DunhamWhitehead, R. van Buskirk and J. Lutz. 2000. 

Estimating Marginal Residential Energy Prices in 

the Analysis of Proposed Appliance Energy 

Efficiency Standards. Conference Paper, 

Proceedings of the ACEEE Summer Study on 

Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 

9A draft paper, ‘‘Using the Experience Curve 

Approach for Appliance Price Forecasting,’’ posted 

on the DOE Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards, summarizes the 

data and literature currently available to DOE that 

is relevant to price forecasts for selected appliances 

and equipment. 

10Weiss, M., Junginger, M., Patel, M.K., Blok, K., 

2010a. ‘‘A review of experience curve analyses for 

energy demand technologies.’’ Technological 

Forecasting and Social Change 77, 411–428. 

11 Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 

(GAMA). Historical Shipment Data (1987–2003), 

provided to DOE April 10, 2005. AHRI. Historical 

Shipment Data (2004–2009), provided to DOE June 

20, 2010. 

associated with conservation standards; 

(2) a marginal price analysis reflects the 

incremental or decremental gas costs 

most closely associated with changes in 

the amount of gas consumed when 

comparing appliances of different 

efficiencies; (3) DOE uses marginal 

residential and commercial electricity 

prices in its life-cycle-cost analysis; (4) 

technical analysis by the Gas 

Technology Institute (GTI) includes a 

marginal price analysis for the 90- 

percent AFUE regional standard, by 

using citygate prices 7 as a proxy for 

marginal price and reducing the 

residential gas price to reflect a removal 

of a portion of fixed costs. AGA stated 

that: (1) The results of GTI’s analysis 

show that the life-cycle-cost savings of 

replacing a non-condensing gas furnace 

with a condensing gas furnace are 

negative in the northern region using 

citygate prices as a proxy for marginal 

price, based on AEO 2011 forecasts of 

natural gas prices; (2) under the 

alternative method of removing fixed 

costs as a proxy for marginal prices, the 

analysis similarly shows that the lifecycle-cost savings of installations of 90- 

percent AFUE condensing gas furnaces 

in the replacement market in the 

northern region are negative or only 

barely positive. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 13) 

In contrast, the Joint Comment stated 

that DOE’s approach for developing 

natural gas prices, which incorporates 

regional and seasonal variations, is 

appropriate and that the prices DOE 

derived reflect the prices faced by 

furnace users. (Joint Comment, No. 47 at 

pp. 4–5) 

In response, DOE believes that 

average natural gas prices are suitable 

for evaluating the impacts of furnace 

standards. DOE also used average 

natural gas prices in the 2010 final rule 

for energy conservation standards for 

residential water heaters, direct heating 

equipment, and pool heaters. 75 FR 

20112, 20158 (April 16, 2010). Although 

marginal energy prices are in theory 

preferable when evaluating the lifecycle-cost savings associated with 

standards, past analysis found that 

marginal natural gas prices were only 

4.4 percent lower than average prices in 

the winter, when furnaces are used.8 At 

the time of the DFR analyses, DOE was 

unable to obtain marginal gas prices for 

the following reasons. The RECS 2005 

billing data that allow estimation of 

marginal prices were not available at 

that time due to EIA’s concerns over 

maintaining confidentiality of the 

survey respondents. In the alternative, 

DOE investigated development of 

marginal prices from gas utility tariffs, 

but found that, in general, gas tariffs 

include provisions for modifying 

consumer prices on a monthly basis to 

account for changes in commodity 

price. Therefore, the tariffs themselves 

do not provide sufficient information to 

determine the consumer price. 

In response to comments on the DFR, 

DOE estimated marginal natural gas 

prices using newly-available RECS 2005 

billing data. Using this data in DOE’s 

model, the average LCC benefits 

decrease from $155 (using average 

energy prices) to $128 (using marginal 

energy prices). 

5. DOE Has Not Justified Its Use of 

Experience Curve Price Effects 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE’s use of 

experience curves to support the direct 

final rule is premature; and (2) DOE has 

not yet issued a final rule or policy 

regarding the use of experience curve or 

learning curve analyses or responded to 

the comments submitted in that 

proceeding. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 14) 

To clarify, on February 22, 2011, DOE 

published a Notice of Data Availability 

(NODA, 76 FR 9696) in the Federal 

Register stating that DOE may consider 

changes to how it addresses equipment 

price trends, as part of DOE’s ongoing 

efforts to keep improving its regulatory 

analyses. DOE responded to comments 

on the NODA and outlined its refined 

policy regarding the use of experience 

curves in the direct final rule in this 

proceeding and several other 

rulemakings mentioned below. In the 

DFR, DOE presented a range of 

estimates for product price trends, 

including trends derived using the 

experience curve approach. 

AGA and APGA stated that DOE’s 

experience curve analysis in the direct 

final rule is unexplained and 

unjustified. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 14; 

APGA, No. 24 at p. 3) AGA stated that 

DOE has not adequately shown that, 

based on historical price data, the price 

trend for Category IV condensing gas 

furnaces would continue to trend 

downward over time at the rate that 

DOE has assumed. Nor is there any 

justification, according to those 

commenters, as to why such curves 

should be so much greater for gas 

equipment than for electric equipment. 

(AGA, No. 27 at pp. 14–15) Laclede Gas 

also stated that the experience rates 

used by DOE were overstated. (Laclede 

Gas, No. 27 at pp. 2–3) 

On the other hand, the Joint Comment 

supported DOE’s use of learning rates in 

the analysis. (Joint Comment, No. 47 at 

p. 3) It stated that the incorporation of 

learning rates in this rulemaking is 

consistent with recent DOE final rules 

on refrigerators, clothes dryers, and 

room air conditioners, where DOE also 

applied learning rates. 76 FR 57516, 

57548–50 (Sept. 15, 2011); 76 FR 

52852–52854 (Aug. 24, 2011). 

In response, DOE’s derivation of price 

trends for central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, and furnaces is described in 

detail in appendix 8–J of the DFR TSD. 

The essential justification for using the 

experience curve approach is that it 

yields a statistically robust method for 

analyzing the long-term declining real 

price trend, based on Producer Price 

Indexes (PPI), observed for central air 

conditioners and furnaces. There exists 

an extensive economic literature on 

learning and experience curves, based 

on robust observations spanning many 

decades.9 The concept was pioneered 

for the manufacturing sector, and it has 

since been applied to a diverse set of 

products and services.10 Learning and 

experience curves are now regularly 

incorporated into economic modeling, 

including in the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS). Broader 

discussion of the reasons why DOE 

believes use of the experience curve 

approach is reasonable is provided in 

the final rule for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 76 FR 

57516, 57548–50 (Sept. 15, 2011). 

DOE did not have historical price data 

specific to condensing gas furnaces. 

However, the growing share of 

condensing furnaces over the past two 

decades (from approximately 23 percent 

in 1990 to approximately 50 percent in 

2010) 11 is reflected in the PPI series that 

DOE used to derive an experience rate 

for furnaces. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67045 

12See appendix 8–J of the DFR TSD. 

13U.S. Department of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program. 

Multi-Year Program Plan, Building Regulatory 

Programs: 2010–2015 (Oct. 2010). (http:// 

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ 

corporate/regulatory_programs_mypp.pdf) 

14 DOE’s lifetime methodology is described in: 

Lutz, J. A. Hopkins, V. Letschert, V. Franco, and A. 

Sturges. ‘‘Using national survey data to estimate 

lifetimes of residential appliances’’ published in 

HVAC&R Research (Volume 17, Issue 5, 2011). 

(URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 

10.1080/10789669.2011.558166) 

15AGA Comment Letter to DOE on NOPR 

Furnace Rulemaking and TSD (Nov. 10, 2010). 

(Docket Number: EE–2009–BT–STD–0022) 

16Alpine Home Air (URL: http://www.alpine

homeair.com/viewproduct.cfm?product

ID=453056758); Comfort Gurus (URL: http://www.

comfortgurus.com/product_info.php/products_id/ 

5368) 

For warm-air furnaces, the medium 

estimated learning rate (defined as the 

fractional reduction in price expected 

from each doubling of cumulative 

production) is 30.6 percent. For unitary 

air conditioners, the medium estimated 

learning rate is 18.1 percent. The higher 

rate for furnaces results from the steeper 

decline in the inflation-adjusted historic 

price index for warm air furnaces.12

In response to comments on the DFR, 

DOE evaluated the impact of not using 

the learning rate on the LCC results. 

Using this input in DOE’s model, the 

average LCC benefits decrease from 

$155 (using medium estimated learning 

rates) to $148 (not using the learning 

rates). 

6. DOE’s Estimate of Expected Furnace 

Lifetime Is Unsupported 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE’s estimate of 

a 23.68 year lifetime for a gas furnace is 

contradicted by other DOE and 

manufacturer estimates; (2) in its latest 

DOE Multi-Year Program Plan, updated 

in October 2010, DOE estimated that the 

lifetime of a non-weatherized gas 

furnaces is 16 years; (3) according to 

GTI’s recent technical analysis, the 

16-year useful life estimate is consistent 

with other manufacturer estimates of 

useful life; (4) GTI’s analysis shows that 

using a 16-year useful life estimate 

substantially reduces the life-cycle-cost 

savings for the 90-percent AFUE gas 

furnace in the northern region. (AGA, 

No. 27 at pp. 15–16) Laclede Gas 

Company made a similar comment. 

(Laclede, No. 27 at p. 4) 

The Joint Comment stated that the 

fixed 16-year lifetime was unreasonable 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces. It 

noted that DOE used a distribution of 

lifetimes to reflect expected failure rates 

in the field and that DOE derived the 

average lifetime of 23.7 years for nonweatherized gas furnaces from a 

combination of sources. (Joint 

Comment, No. 47 at pp. 4–5) 

In response, the value in DOE’s 2010 

Multi-Year Program Plan 13 was an 

estimate from the published literature, 

rather than the result of empirical 

analysis. DOE’s DFR methodology 

utilized a more rigorous product 

lifetime analysis, including historical 

data on appliance shipments, total 

appliance stock, and the fraction of 

surviving appliances to estimate the 

mean life and mortality shape factor 

using the best-fitting Weibull survival 

function.14 Changing the average 

lifetime to 16 years results in projected 

shipments that are approximately 30 

percent to 40 percent greater than the 

forecast in the DFR. In this case, the NIA 

model’s ‘backcast’ diverges significantly 

from historical shipments. That is, a 

16-year average lifetime is inconsistent 

with historical data on furnace 

shipments. Consequently, DOE has 

confirmed that the DFR’s estimated 

average lifetime of 23.7 years for nonweatherized gas furnaces remains the 

best estimate of that value. However, in 

response to comments on the DFR, DOE 

evaluated the impact of using the 

average fixed 16-year lifetime on the 

LCC results. Using that input in DOE’s 

model, the average LCC benefits 

decrease from $155 (using DOE’s 

lifetime methodology) to $72 (using a 

16-year lifetime). 

7. DOE Has Not Justified Its 

Assumptions Regarding Installation 

Costs 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE has not 

adequately supported the specific 

installation cost adders and distribution 

of occurrences that it has used; (2) 

DOE’s analysis significantly 

underestimates the costs associated with 

installation of condensing gas furnaces 

that consumers would actually incur, 

both as a result of underestimating 

specific cost items and failing to include 

specific cost items; (3) AGA submitted 

data in this proceeding showing that the 

cost for installation of condensing 

furnaces in commonly-vented systems 

in total would range from $1,500 to 

$2,200 (in 2005$) based on a survey of 

its members. AGA recommended that 

DOE apply a probability distribution for 

each installation cost adder and include 

that variation as an independent 

variable in the calculation. (AGA, No. 

27 at p. 16) ACCA also stated that the 

standard mandating condensing 

furnaces in the northern region is based 

on incomplete or inaccurate 

assumptions on the costs for retrofitting 

homes. (ACCA, No. 27 at p. 4) The UGI 

Distribution Companies commented that 

DOE’s installation cost estimates for 

accommodating high-efficiency gas 

furnace and orphaned gas water heater 

venting issues seem unrealistically low, 

particularly for row homes, multi-family 

dwellings, and older urban structures 

with high masonry chimneys. (UGI 

Distribution Companies, No. 22 at p. 4) 

In contrast, the Joint Comment stated 

that DOE had considered the comments 

from interested parties and conducted a 

thorough analysis of installation costs 

for both replacement and new 

construction installations. (Joint 

Comment, No. 47 at p. 2) 

In response to AGA’s first point, the 

sources and methods used to derive the 

specific installation cost adders and 

distribution of occurrences are 

described in detail in appendix 8–B of 

the DFR TSD. DOE believes that it has 

included all relevant cost items. 

The range of $1,500 to $2,200 

mentioned by AGA (in $2005; 

equivalent to $1,648 to $2,417 in 2009$) 

refers to the added cost for installation 

of condensing furnaces in common 

vented systems.15 As shown in Table 

II.1, the range of many of DOE’s specific 

costs are similar to the ranges given in 

AGA’s survey. For the relining of an 

existing chimney or resizing of a vent to 

accommodate the remaining appliance, 

DOE believes that AGA’s relining costs 

are more typical for long vertical vent 

lengths (households with two floors or 

more), whereas the costs used by DOE 

represent a wide range of installations. 

In terms of installing a drain pan for 

condensate, DOE’s estimate is based on 

the material cost of the drain pan from 

two retail Web sites.16 Despite these 

differences, DOE’s total estimated 

average cost ($1,596) is close to the 

lower end of AGA’s estimate. (DOE 

applied the structural modifications and 

the relining costs in Table II.1 to all 

commonly-vented systems that require 

venting modifications to satisfy the 

safety requirements. DOE estimated that 

such modifications are required for 

about 36 percent of all commonlyvented systems.) In summary, DOE 

concludes that its analysis of 

installation costs included all relevant 

items and used an appropriate range of 

costs for each item. In response to 

comments on the DFR, DOE evaluated 

the impact of using AGA’s installation 

costs. Using these inputs in DOE’s 

model, the average LCC benefits 

increase from $155 (using DOE’s 

installation cost estimates) to $168 

(using AGA’s installation cost 

estimates). The main reason why the 

LCC benefits based on AGA’s 

assumptions increase is that under 

DOE’s estimates, performance of 

structural modifications is applied to all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

17 Jakob, F. E., J. J. Crisafulli, J. R. Menkedick, R. 

D. Fischer, D. B. Philips, R. L. Osbone, J. C. Cross, 

G. R. Whitacre, J. G. Murray, W. J. Sheppard, D. W. 

DeWirth, and W. H. Thrasher, Assessment of 

Technology for Improving the Efficiency of 

Residential Gas Furnaces and Boilers, Volume I and 

II—Appendices, September, 1994. Gas Research 

Institute. AGA Laboratories, Chicago, IL. Report No. 

GRI–94/0175. 

18U.S. Department of Energy—Energy Efficiency 

& Renewable Energy, Technical Support Document: 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Consumer 

Products: Residential Furnaces and Boilers, 2007. 

Washington, DC. 19 D.D. Paul et al., Assessment of Technology for 

Improving the Efficiency of Residential Gas Water 

Heaters, December, 1991. Battelle. Columbus. 

Report No. GRI–91/0298. 

installations and has higher cost, 

whereas AGA’s assumptions regarding 

relining chimney/resizing vents and 

condensate installation issues are 

applied to only a fraction of 

installations. 

TABLE II.1—INSTALLATION COSTS FOR CONDENSING FURNACES IN COMMONLY-VENTED SYSTEMS

Additional venting system/installation requirements 

AGA cost range 

(average) 

(2009$) * 

DOE cost range for 

northern region 

(average) 

(2009$) 

Perform structural modifications (including boring holes in interior walls, floors, exterior walls for 

vents and new vent termination kit) ..................................................................................................... $330–$494 ($412) $131–$1887 ($518) 

Reline existing chimney or resize vent to accommodate the remaining appliance (code requirement 

for proper vent sizing) .......................................................................................................................... $659–$1098 ($879) $95–$1404 ($548) 

Install drain pan for condensate from condensing furnace (code requirement to avoid structural damage) ...................................................................................................................................................... $165–$275 ($220) $45–$45 ($45) 

Install freeze protection for condensate line to ensure reliability of disposal (for installation outside of 

conditioned space) ............................................................................................................................... $220–$220 ($220) $101–$272 ($184) 

Install condensate drain, pump, acid neutralizer, etc .............................................................................. $275–$330 ($302) $216–$455 ($300) 

* Cost adjusted using CPI from 2005$ to 2009$. 

AHRI pointed out that the 1994 Gas 

Research Institute (GRI) Gas Furnace 

Survey 17 found that as more condensing 

furnaces were sold in a specific area, the 

cost of installation became lower, 

suggesting that this could occur in the 

case of the standard for the northern 

region (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 4). DOE 

agrees that the trend mentioned by 

AHRI could occur and potentially result 

in lower installation costs than those 

estimated for the DFR. 

AGA stated that: (1) The 2007 Furnace 

Rule 18 relied on data from a 1994 GRI 

furnace survey to determine the 

percentage of homes in which gas 

appliances were commonly-vented; (2) 

DOE changed the data set in the direct 

final rule proceeding, relying instead on 

an older 1991 GRI water heater 

survey; 19 (3) DOE has not explained the 

basis for the change in the data set. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 16) 

In response, to determine the fraction 

of installations with common venting, 

DOE used both the 1994 GRI furnace 

survey and a 1991 GRI water heater 

survey. DOE used the 1990 survey to 

develop regional fractions of the 

common venting installations, primarily 

because it is a larger survey (32,000 data 

points) compared to the 1994 survey 

(1,300 data points). On average, both 

surveys produce similar results: The 

1990 survey showed 57 percent of 

households with a gas water heater had 

common venting, while the 1994 GRI 

study showed 52 percent of gas furnaces 

had common venting. Combining these 

fractions with the RECS 2005 household 

sample resulted in a nationwide 

estimate that 50 percent of gas furnaces 

are commonly vented with gas water 

heaters. For the northern region this 

fraction is 57 percent. 

AGA stated that according to GTI, 

DOE appears to have used a national 

average figure of the percent of housing 

stock that would require the chimney to 

be relined when installing a condensing 

gas furnace as opposed to a northern 

regional fraction, potentially 

understating installation costs 

associated with chimney relining that 

would support a regional standard. 

(AGA, No. 27 at p. 17) DOE used the 

1994 GRI furnace survey data to derive 

the fraction of households with chimney 

venting for the northern region. This 

survey showed that 72 percent of the 

northern installations utilize chimney 

venting (see TSD, appendix 8–B for 

details). 

8. DOE Failed To Conduct an Adequate 

Analysis of Fuel Switching Between 

Natural Gas and Electric Appliances 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE’s analysis of 

the potential for fuel switching is 

cursory and ignores the problems 

consumers face when having to install 

a condensing gas furnace; (2) DOE’s 

analysis fails to consider the wide range 

of options consumers actually face in 

making appliance choices; (3) 

consumers are sensitive to the relative 

differences in the total upfront cost of 

purchasing the appliance and having it 

installed, and often undervalue the 

differences in annual operating costs; (4) 

even assuming that switching from a gas 

furnace to an electric furnace will 

require additional installation costs for 

electrical circuitry, consumers will be 

encouraged to fuel switch where the 

total equipment and installation costs of 

a 90-percent AFUE condensing gas 

furnace exceed the total equipment and 

installation costs of a comparable 

electric furnace. (AGA, No. 27 at pp. 18– 

20) Concerns that the condensing 

furnace standard could lead consumers 

to switch to electric heating were also 

raised by AGL, APGA, CenterPoint 

Energy, the UGI Distribution 

Companies, City Utilities of Springfield, 

Laclede Gas Company, and Questar Gas. 

(AGL, No. 27 at pp. 7–8; APGA, No. 24 

at p. 8; CenterPoint Energy, No. 33 at p. 

3; UGI Distribution Companies, No. 22 

at p. 4; City Utilities of Springfield, No. 

26 at p. 1; Laclede, No. 44 at p. 3; 

Questar Gas, No. 48 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees that consumers are 

sensitive to the relative differences in 

the total upfront cost of purchasing the 

appliance and having it installed, and 

often undervalue the differences in 

annual operating costs. However, AGA’s 

contention that consumers will be 

encouraged to fuel switch where the 

total installed costs of a 90-percent 

AFUE condensing gas furnace exceed 

the total equipment and installation 

costs of a comparable electric furnace 

seems to take the extreme (and 

unsubstantiated) view that consumers 

place little value on differences in 

operating costs at all. Further, the 

difference in annual operating costs 

between a condensing gas furnace and 

an electric furnace in the northern 

region are very large. A household using 

40 MMBtu/year of natural gas, which is 

the estimated average for a condensing 

furnace in the northern region, would 

incur annual costs of $400 to $600, 

while an electric furnace satisfying the 

same heating load would incur costs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67047 

20See Appendix C of the final rule TSD for the 

2007 furnace and boiler rulemaking. http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/residential/fb_tsd_0907.html. 

21 Documentation of the sensitivity analysis may 

be found at DOE’s Residential Furnaces and Boilers 

Web site—APGA Life-Cycle Cost Scenarios at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/residential/residential_furnaces_cac_hp_

direct_final_rule.html. 

ranging from $800 to $1,700. Even in 

parts of the northern region where the 

heating load is half of the above average, 

the operating cost differential is still 

significant. 

Given the initial costs involved in 

replacing a gas furnace with electric 

space heating, combined with the much 

higher operating costs of an electric 

heating system, DOE believes that the 

approach used for the DFR is 

reasonable. 

AGA stated that: (1) DOE 

acknowledges but fails to address the 

possibility that requiring the 

replacement of a non-condensing gas 

furnace with a 90-percent AFUE 

condensing gas furnace will lead to an 

orphaned water heater, thereby 

encouraging consumers to replace the 

gas water heater with an electric 

resistance water heater; (2) consumers 

will be encouraged to switch to an 

electric water heater where the costs of 

addressing the venting issues associated 

with an orphaned gas water heater 

exceed the total equipment and 

installation costs of an electric water 

heater. (AGA, No. 27 at p. 19) 

DOE believes that consumers are 

unlikely to engage in large-scale 

switching from a gas-fired water heater 

to an electric water heater. If the gas 

water heater is near the end of its useful 

lifetime, the consumer may elect to 

purchase a new power vent gas water 

heater rather than incur the expense of 

re-lining. Some consumers could elect 

to replace the gas water heater with an 

electric water heater to avoid the cost of 

relining, but estimates of electric water 

heater installation cost plus electrical 

service installation plus the extra energy 

cost indicate that the total is higher than 

the cost of relining, so this possibility is 

unlikely.20

9. DOE Has Not Considered the Costs of 

Enforcement 

AGA stated that: (1) The technical 

support documents in this proceeding 

do not contain any analysis of the 

impacts of enforcement costs on 

consumers, manufacturers, or other 

market participants, including other 

entities that may additionally be 

required to enforce the regional 

standard, such as equipment distributor 

or installers; and (2) without an 

assessment of enforcement costs, the 

economic justification of the standards 

in this proceeding is incomplete. (AGA, 

No. 27 at p. 21) Concerns that DOE did 

not consider enforcement costs were 

also expressed by ACCA, AGL, HARDI, 

Laclede Gas Company, and NPGA. 

(ACCA, No. 50 at p. 5; AGL, No. 31 at 

p. 4; HARDI, No. 39 at p. 2; Laclede, No. 

44 at p. 12; NPGA, No. 49 at p. 3) 

In contrast, AHRI stated that: (1) DOE 

should act quickly to open a rulemaking 

on regional standards enforcement; and 

(2) the fact that DOE has not yet 

considered standards enforcement is not 

a defect in the final rule. (AHRI, No. 46 

at p. 5) The Joint Comment stated that 

the enforcement plan proceeding, 

required after adoption of a regional 

standard, would be an appropriate time 

for consideration of a DOE Office of 

Hearings and Appeals (OHA) waiver 

process designed to address any special 

hardship situations. (Joint Comment, 

No. 47 at pp. 4–5) 

In response, DOE does not believe 

that the cost of enforcement of regional 

standards impacts the life-cycle cost, 

payback period, or other factors 

considered in the establishment of 

energy conservation standards 

differently than the costs of enforcement 

of national energy conservation 

standards. Rather, enforcement costs 

will depend on the specific enforcement 

framework mechanism that is put in 

place. EPCA requires DOE to ‘‘initiate’’ 

an enforcement rulemaking not later 

than 90 days after the issuance of a final 

rule establishing regional standards and 

to complete the rulemaking not later 

than 15 months following the issuance 

of the rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(6)(G)(ii)). 

Clearly, the express provisions of the 

statute contemplate the rulemaking on 

enforcement of regional standards 

commencing after the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking has 

been completed. Having the standards 

in place is a necessary precursor to 

evaluating potential enforcement efforts. 

DOE plans to incorporate all feedback 

from this standards rulemaking process 

into the enforcement rulemaking, and 

will assess the impact of that 

enforcement regime in the context of the 

enforcement rulemaking. 

10. Impact on Low-Income Consumers 

UGI and CenterPoint Energy stated 

that the standard for the northern region 

could harm low-income consumers due 

to the higher first cost of installing a 

condensing furnace. (CenterPoint 

Energy, No. 33 at p. 6; UGI, No. 22 at 

p. 4) 

On the other hand, CFA and NCLC 

highlighted the benefits that higher 

furnace standards would bring to lowincome households, who are 

predominately renters. They stated that 

heating bills place a large burden on 

moderate-income and low-income 

families, and the standard would reduce 

their energy bills and reduce the 

demand for natural gas, thereby 

moderating future price increases for 

consumers. (CFA and NCLC, No. 36 at 

p. 2) 

DOE’s consumer subgroup analysis 

(described in chapter 11 of the DFR 

TSD) estimated that low-income 

households show somewhat higher LCC 

savings from more-efficient furnaces 

than the general population. Regarding 

the first cost, DOE agrees that because 

many low-income consumers are 

renters, the cost of replacing a furnace 

would be incurred by the landlord and 

would likely be passed on to the 

consumer gradually in the form of 

increased rent. DOE believes that these 

factors moderate the impacts of 

amended standards on low-income 

consumers. 

11. Sensitivity Analysis of the Standard 

for Residential Gas Furnaces in the 

Northern Region 

DOE believes that the analysis 

documented in the DFR and the 

accompanying TSD provides sufficient 

justification for its determination that 

TSL 4 achieves the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified and will result in 

significant conservation of energy. DOE 

further notes that it did not receive 

comments critical of the models it used 

in its analysis. However, because some 

of the commenters devoted considerable 

effort to developing recommendations 

for alternatives to some of the inputs 

that DOE used in its DFR analysis, DOE 

conducted a new analysis to assess the 

impact on consumers from using the 

recommended alternatives. The 

assumptions that DOE used in this 

sensitivity analysis were the same as the 

assertions made by AGA in its comment 

as follows: (1) A furnace lifetime of 16 

years for all households; (2) no decline 

in furnace prices based on experience 

curve analysis; (3) the ranges for the 

added cost for installing condensing 

furnaces in commonly-vented systems 

recommended by AGA (see Table II.1); 

(4) a natural gas price forecast based on 

the AEO 2011 Reference case; and (5) 

use of marginal natural gas prices (based 

on analysis of RECS 2005 billing data).21

These assumptions reflect key 

comments made by AGA (described 

above) and a request made by APGA. 

(APGA, No. 20 at pp. 1–2) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

22The comment from China references ‘‘IEC 

60321.’’ However, DOE believes this was an error 

and that the comment was intended to reference 

IEC 62301, Household Electrical Appliances— 

Measurement of Standby Power. 

23 ISO 5151: Non-ducted air conditioners and 

heat pumps—testing and rating for performance, 

and ISO 13253: Ducted air-conditioners and air to 

air heat pumps—Testing and rating for 

performance. 

Under the sensitivity analysis, the 

average LCC savings for consumers in 

the Northern region are $44. This value 

is less than the average cited in the DFR 

($155), but is still positive. Regardless, 

this lower, but still positive, LCC 

savings value is sufficient to 

demonstrate economic justification of 

TSL 4 under the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Thus, even under the 

assumptions favored by AGA and 

APGA, even if they were all correct, a 

scenario DOE does not believe likely, 

the amended standard still have a 

positive impact on consumers in the 

northern region. 

C. Comments on Standards for 

Residential Central Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

The People’s Republic of China 

(China) commented that the EER 

standards should be cancelled and that 

DOE should only adopt the SEER as the 

air conditioner’s energy efficiency 

evaluation ratio. China noted that SEER 

reflects an air conditioner’s efficiency 

over a whole season and in varying 

conditions, while EER only reflects 

performance under specific conditions 

and, therefore, cannot reflect the energy 

efficiency over an entire season. (China, 

No. 8 at p. 3) For this reason, China 

suggested that DOE only use SEER as 

the regulating metric. (China, No. 8 at p. 

3) 

As noted in the direct final rule, DOE 

believes that it has the authority to set 

dual metrics when considering a 

consensus agreement, and consequently, 

DOE analyzed setting an EER standard 

in the Hot-Dry region. 76 FR 37408, 

37423 (June 27, 2011). DOE agrees with 

China that SEER is more representative 

of seasonal performance, but DOE also 

believes that there is merit to having an 

EER standard, because the conditions at 

which EER is measured are common for 

the Hot-Dry region. By using both SEER 

and EER as metrics, DOE will have 

standards for both seasonal efficiency 

and peak efficiency, which it believes 

will lead to additional energy savings in 

the Hot-Dry region. Therefore, DOE will 

not withdraw the EER standard levels 

from the Hot-Dry region. 

China further commented that 

differences between DOE and 

international standards for definitions 

and test methods for off mode, as well 

the classification of air conditioners, 

will lead to increased costs for 

manufacturers, and suggested that DOE 

should harmonize its regulations with 

international standards. Specifically, 

China referenced International 

Standards IEC 62301,22 ISO 5151 and 

ISO 13253.23 (China, No. 8 at p. 3) 

IEC Standard 62301 is a test method 

for measuring standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption of household 

appliances. As discussed in detail in the 

April 1, 2011 central air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedure SNOPR (76 

FR 18105, 18108), DOE believes that the 

IEC 62301 definitions and test method 

are too broad to be applicable to 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. In response to China’s 

concern about how DOE classifies air 

conditioners as compared to ISO 5151 

and ISO 13253, DOE notes its 

definitions of residential ‘‘central air 

conditioner’’ and ‘‘heat pump’’ are 

determined by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(21) and 42 U.S.C. 6291(24)) DOE 

determines the product classes for 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

subject to the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q) and cannot alter these criteria to 

align its definitions with international 

standards. 

D. Comments on Standby Mode and Off 

Mode Standard Levels 

1. Standby Mode and Off Mode Levels 

for Residential Furnaces 

In response to the standby mode and 

off mode energy conservation standards 

promulgated for residential furnaces, 

DOE received several comments. 

AHRI supported the standby mode 

and off mode standards for residential 

furnaces. (AHRI, No. 46 at p. 5) AHRI, 

EarthJustice, and ACEEE commented 

there is consensus agreement for the 

standby mode and off mode standards 

for furnaces promulgated in the DFR. 

(AHRI and EarthJustice, No. 52 at p. 1; 

ACEEE, No. 53 at p. 1) 

Conversely, Horizon Plastics stated 

that the standby mode and off mode 

energy consumption requirements for 

residential furnaces are too high and 

will not drive any meaningful energy 

conservation. (Horizon Plastics, No. 15 

at p. 1) Further, Horizon Plastics 

referenced Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL) test data on 16 

residential furnaces that showed 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption values ranging from 0 to 

9.8 watts (W) as evidence that lower 

levels are readily achievable. (Horizon 

Plastics, No. 15 at p. 1) Horizon Plastics 

also described an innovation developed 

by their company that requires only an 

additional capacitor, relay, and 

proprietary code to reduce standby 

mode and off mode power to 0 W, while 

adding minimal cost to the furnace. 

Given that their new technology would 

significantly reduce standby mode and 

off mode power consumption, Horizon 

Plastics asserted that the standby mode 

and off mode requirements for furnaces 

should be removed from the subject 

standard and moved to a separate 

rulemaking. (Horizon Plastics, No. 15 at 

pp. 2–3) 

DOE agrees with Horizon Plastics that 

many furnace models already available 

on the market are capable of meeting the 

standby mode and off mode standards 

promulgated in the DFR. In preparation 

for the DFR, DOE tested a number of 

furnaces, many of which met the 

standby mode and off mode 

requirements in the DFR. However, DOE 

found that products with lower standby 

mode and off mode power consumption 

typically have less sophisticated designs 

and controls and are often less efficient 

when operating in active mode. 

Removing certain components, such as 

an electronically-commutated motor or 

sophisticated control systems (if 

equipped) will allow a furnace to 

achieve lower standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption, but it may 

also increase active mode energy 

consumption and reduce consumer 

utility (in the form of reduced comfort 

if certain controls are eliminated), 

which is contrary to the purpose of the 

DFR. In its analysis of standby mode 

and off mode levels, DOE did not 

consider levels that would limit 

manufacturer design choices when 

trying to achieve greater efficiency in 

the active mode, or that would reduce 

consumer utility. DOE started at the 

baseline (i.e., the highest standby mode 

and off mode energy consuming) level, 

and implemented design options of 

which DOE was aware at the time of the 

analysis that would not impact the 

ability of the furnace to achieve greater 

active mode efficiency and would not 

reduce consumer utility. 

Regarding the new design presented 

by Horizon Plastics, DOE is encouraged 

by innovations that reduce standby 

mode and off mode energy consumption 

to 0 W, and hopes that the minimum 

standards for standby mode and off 

mode consumption promulgated by the 

DFR spur further innovation in reducing 

standby mode and off mode 

consumption. However, DOE notes that 

it generally does not consider 

proprietary designs in its analysis, as it 

may unfairly skew the market to give 

one company an advantage over 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67049 

competitors. For this reason, DOE 

believes that although the technology 

presented by Horizon Plastics may be a 

viable technology, it cannot be 

considered in DOE’s rulemaking 

analysis, and does not provide a 

reasonable basis for withdrawal of the 

standby mode and off mode standards 

for residential furnaces. 

2. Off Mode Levels for Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

On August 24, 2011, AHRI, 

EarthJustice, and ACEEE submitted 

letters to DOE urging DOE to sever the 

central air conditioner and heat pumps 

off mode standards from the DFR for 

several reasons. (AHRI and EarthJustice, 

No. 52 at pp. 1–4; ACEEE, No. 53 at p. 

1) Specifically, the commenters asserted 

that the test procedure had not yet been 

finalized, which was in violation of 

EPCA section 325(gg)(3), and 

consequently, DOE had not done the 

necessary background work for 

inclusion of these standards in the 

direct final rule. (AHRI and EarthJustice, 

No. 52 at pp. 2–3) AHRI and 

EarthJustice also commented that EPCA 

section 336(b)(3) provides DOE with the 

authority to partially withdraw a direct 

final rule and referenced several direct 

final rules from other Federal agencies 

that were partially withdrawn. (AHRI 

and EarthJustice, No. 52 at pp. 3, 5–10) 

In a supporting comment, ACEEE noted 

that off mode standards were not 

included in the Consensus Agreement 

which was submitted to DOE, and that 

while consensus among stakeholders 

had subsequently been reached for the 

furnace standby mode and off mode 

standards, no similar agreement had 

been reached on the central air 

conditioner and heat pump off mode 

standards. Consequently, ACEEE 

recommended that the off mode 

standards for central air conditioners 

and heat pumps be severed from the 

DFR and withdrawn pending further 

rulemaking. (ACEEE, No. 53 at p.1) 

Similarly, ACCA argued that this direct 

final rule is an unsuitable use of the 

direct final rule process, because it 

includes standby mode and off mode 

standards which were not part of the 

submitted Consensus Agreement. 

(ACCA, No. 50 at p. 2) 

AHRI submitted a supplemental 

comment, which reiterated their 

concerns about the lack of a finalized 

test procedure for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps address 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption, and it also wrote that the 

off mode standards levels were too 

stringent and would eliminate the 

majority of products on the market by 

effectively outlawing crankcase heaters. 

Crankcase heaters are used to prevent 

lubrication oil from mixing with liquid 

refrigerant and are responsible for the 

bulk of an air conditioner or heat pumps 

off mode power consumption. AHRI 

believes that without crankcase heaters, 

the reliability of units will be decreased 

because this mixing will result in 

compressors seizing due to a lack of 

lubrication, and noted that according to 

EPCA, DOE cannot prescribe standards 

which would decrease the utility or 

performance of a product (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)). (AHRI, No. 46 at 

pp. 5–7) 

DOE published a supplementary 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR) 

for the residential central air 

conditioner and heat pump test 

procedure in the Federal Register on 

October 24, 2011. 76 FR 65616. DOE 

believes that AHRI’s concerns regarding 

off mode would be addressed by 

adoption after public comment of the 

SNOPR. Regarding AHRI’s comments 

about crankcase heaters, DOE believes 

that its proposed test procedure (as 

detailed in the October 2011 SNOPR) 

and energy conservation standards will 

not disallow the use of crankcase 

heaters. DOE notes that there is 

potential confusion because a 40-watt 

crankcase heater is commonly used in 

the industry, and the standard is lower 

than 40 watts. However, because the 

proposed method for calculating off 

mode energy consumption in DOE’s test 

procedure is an average of the off mode 

energy consumption at multiple 

operating conditions, it is possible for a 

unit with a 40-watt crankcase heater to 

achieve a rating lower than 40 watts if 

the crankcase heater is controlled such 

that it is not always on when the unit 

is in off mode. Testing conducted by 

DOE for this SNOPR indicated that there 

are products with controlled crankcase 

heaters, which can already meet the 

proposed standard levels. 76 FR 65616, 

65620 (Oct. 24, 2011). Therefore, DOE 

believes that the off-mode testing 

procedures proposed in the SNOPR 

would, if adopted in final, alleviate 

AHRI’s concerns about product 

reliability stemming from not being able 

to find a crankcase heater that allows 

manufacturers to meet the standard. 

Further, DOE notes that the issues 

brought up by AHRI pertain specifically 

to the test method rather than to the 

standard levels promulgated in the 

direct final rule. As a result, these issues 

are better suited to be addressed in the 

test procedure rulemaking, and DOE is, 

in fact, doing so. DOE encourages AHRI, 

EarthJustice and ACEEE to submit 

written comments on the October 2011 

SNOPR so that DOE can consider any 

additional issues with the off mode test 

procedure and resolve them as a part of 

that rulemaking process. As a result, 

DOE is confirming the off mode 

standard levels for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps that were 

originally promulgated in the direct 

final rule. 

E. Other Comments 

1. Adverse Impacts on States 

AGL stated that by adopting the 

standards set forth in the DFR, States 

and local jurisdictions would be 

preempted from adopting morestringent restrictions on less-efficient 

technology, thereby penalizing 

progressive local jurisdictions and 

discouraging them from being proactive 

and innovative. AGL further stated that 

the minimum efficiency for electric 

furnaces will preempt States/localities 

from restricting less-efficient 

technologies, specifically electric 

furnaces. (AGL, No. 31 at p. 10) 

Although DOE agrees that Federal 

energy efficiency standards preempt 

State regulations under 42 U.S.C. 6297, 

DOE does not believe that the 

requirements in the DFR will penalize 

States and local authorities. This 

situation is typical of all EPCA 

rulemakings calling upon DOE to 

consider amended energy conservation 

standards, not only for residential 

furnaces, central air conditioners, and 

heat pumps. However, DOE would 

remind interested parties that it is 

authorized to grant waivers from 

preemption for particular State laws or 

regulations, if such action is warranted 

in accordance with the procedures and 

provisions set forth in section 327(d) of 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) Therefore, 

DOE does not consider the inability of 

States to adopt regulations for the 

products subject to this rulemaking to 

be a significant adverse impact that 

would necessitate withdrawal of the 

direct final rule. 

APGA stated that the adverse safety 

impacts from requiring condensing 

furnaces place a burden on local 

governments, because there may be 

additional costs imposed upon the cities 

(e.g., for training of staff in codes and 

enforcements and the costs of additional 

inspections) to address the potential 

serious harm presented by improper 

venting. APGA contends that this 

represents an unfunded mandate that 

will have an impact on the cities/ 

communities served by its members. 

(APGA, No. 24 at p. 9) In response, DOE 

notes that enforcement of building 

codes currently falls to local authorities, 

which is unchanged by the DFR. 

Further, DOE notes that a significant 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

67050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

24For more information see: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/pdfs/furnaces_framework_jointstake

holdercomments.pdf 

25The rulemaking analysis plan was published on 

DOE’s Web site and announced through the 

publication of a notice of public meeting in the 

Federal Register. 75 FR 12144 (March 15, 2010). 

For more information see: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

residential/pdfs/furnaces_framework_rap.pdf. 

portion of furnace installations in the 

northern region are already condensing 

furnaces, and as such, local inspectors 

should already be well trained in the 

venting code requirements for those 

products and should not require 

additional training from local 

jurisdictions as a result of the DFR. As 

a result, the 90-percent AFUE minimum 

standard in the northern region 

promulgated by the DFR would not add 

any additional burden on local 

authorities, beyond what is already 

required in terms of enforcing building 

codes. 

2. Evaluation of Adverse Comments 

AGL asserted that DOE has stated that 

‘‘adverse’’ impacts will be weighed 

against benefits of the DFR in its 

evaluation of whether to withdraw the 

DFR, and it believes that DOE does not 

have the statutory authority to weigh 

‘‘adverse’’ impacts against the benefit of 

minimum efficiencies because the 

statutory language does not grant this 

power. AGL contends that the statute 

requires DOE to weigh adverse 

comments independent of other 

outcomes anticipated from the rule. 

AGL also argued that adverse comments 

may present issues previously 

unaddressed by DOE. AGL believes that 

weighing new issues against DOE’s 

current analysis would be 

inappropriate, because the issues may 

not have been examined by the DOE. 

AGL stated that DOE must evaluate the 

‘‘adverse’’ nature of all comments raised 

outside of the current analysis, except 

where the comments conflict with the 

current analysis as published by DOE. 

(AGL, No. 31 at p. 3) 

In reviewing the statute, DOE notes 

that EPCA directs the Secretary to 

withdraw the direct final rule if one or 

more adverse public comments is 

received and, based on the rulemaking 

record, the Secretary determines that 

such adverse public comments provide 

a reasonable basis for withdrawing the 

direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C)) DOE believes, therefore, 

that EPCA provides DOE the discretion 

to weigh the significance and credibility 

of the adverse comments received. 

When evaluating adverse comments, 

DOE weighed the significance of each 

comment individually and all 

comments cumulatively to determine 

whether they provided a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the final rule. 

DOE considered each adverse comment 

based on its merits and the background 

data and information that supported 

that comment. DOE notes that this 

weighting is done separately from the 

weighting of the benefits and burdens 

imposed by minimum efficiency 

standards, which weight the adverse 

impacts (i.e., burdens) of standards 

against the benefits to consumers in 

determining which standard level is 

justified, as directed by EPCA (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) . 

3. Time Allowed for Public Input 

MUD commented that the rulemaking 

process was conducted too quickly to 

allow for input from the general public 

and the jurisdictions responsible for 

furnace installation. (MUD, No. 29 at p. 

1) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

Consensus Agreement was submitted to 

DOE on January 15, 2010. DOE 

subsequently posted the document on 

its Web site 24 and requested comment 

on the agreement in its March 2010 

rulemaking analysis plan for residential 

furnaces 25 and in its March 2010 

preliminary analysis for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps (75 FR 

14368). After considering comments 

received in response to the rulemaking 

analysis plan for furnaces and 

preliminary analysis for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, DOE 

performed an in depth analysis of the 

Consensus Agreement efficiency levels 

and other efficiency levels, and 

ultimately proposed the levels 

contained in the agreement as Federal 

energy conservation standard levels in 

the DFR. Then, as directed by EPCA, 

DOE accepted comments for 110 days. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(B)) DOE notes that 

in the typical standards rulemaking 

procedure, the statute requires and DOE 

provides a 60-day comment period. 

Thus, the 110-day comment period was 

longer than usual for a similar 

rulemaking. Moreover, at the time of the 

close of the 110-day DFR comment 

period, the Consensus Agreement had 

been publicly available on DOE’s Web 

site for more than one and a half years, 

and DOE has formally requested 

comments on the agreement in three 

separate rulemaking notices. Therefore, 

DOE believes that there has been ample 

opportunity for input from the general 

public and other interested parties on 

the Consensus Agreement and does not 

agree with MUD’s assertion that it was 

implemented too quickly to allow for 

input from the general public or other 

interested parties. 

In addition, the National Propane Gas 

Association (NPGA) and APGA 

requested that DOE extend the comment 

period on the DFR. NPGA cited delayed 

access to the technical support 

document, difficulties obtaining the 

software used to run the LCC analysis 

and lack of an enforcement plan as 

reasons that DOE should extend the 

comment period. (NPGA, No. 6 at pp. 1– 

2; APGA, No. 24, pp. 14–15). 

DOE notes that EPCA provides that 

not later than 120 days after issuance of 

the DFR, DOE must publish a 

determination in the Federal Register 

whether the rule should take effect or be 

withdrawn based upon significant 

adverse comment. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C)) Given the statutory 

limitation on the time period provided 

in EPCA, DOE could not extend the 

comment period to allow interested 

parties additional time without 

jeopardizing its ability to meet the 

requirements of EPCA. As such, DOE 

was not able to extend the comment 

period on the DFR. 

III. Department of Justice Analysis of 

Competitive Impacts 

EPCA directs DOE to consider any 

lessening of competition that is likely to 

result from new or amended standards. 

It also directs the Attorney General of 

the United States (Attorney General) to 

determine the impact, if any, of any 

lessening of competition likely to result 

from a proposed standard and to 

transmit such determination to the 

Secretary within 60 days of the 

publication of a proposed rule, together 

with an analysis of the nature and 

extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) DOE 

published a NOPR containing energy 

conservation standards identical to 

those set forth the direct final rule and 

transmitted a copy of the direct final 

rule and the accompanying TSD to the 

Attorney General, requesting that the 

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 

provide its determination on this issue. 

DOE has published DOJ’s comments at 

the end of this notice. 

DOJ reviewed the amended standards 

in the direct final rule and the final TSD 

provided by DOE. As a result of its 

analysis, DOJ concluded that the 

amended standards issued in the direct 

final rule are unlikely to have a 

significant adverse impact on 

competition. DOJ further noted that the 

amended standards established in the 

direct final rule were the same as 

recommended standards submitted in 

the Consensus Agreement, which was 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 67051 

signed by a broad cross-section of 

industry participants. 

IV. National Environmental Policy Act 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the 

requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI), DOE prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the standards for residential 

furnaces, central air conditioners, and 

heat pumps in the direct final rule, 

which was included as chapter 15 of the 

direct final rule TSD. DOE found that 

the environmental effects associated 

with the standards for furnaces and 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

were not significant. Therefore, after 

consideration of the comments received 

on the direct final rule, DOE issued a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI) pursuant to NEPA, the 

regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 

1500–1508), and DOE’s regulations for 

compliance with NEPA (10 CFR part 

1021). The FONSI is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

V. Conclusion 

In summary, based on the discussion 

above, DOE has determined that the 

comments received in response to the 

direct final rule for amended energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces, central air conditioners, and 

heat pumps do not provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawal of the direct final 

rule. As a result, the amended energy 

conservation standards set forth in the 

direct final rule become effective on 

October 25, 2011. Compliance with 

these standards is required on May 1, 

2013 for non-weatherized gas and oilfired furnaces and mobile home gas 

furnaces and on January 1, 2015 for 

weatherized gas furnaces and central air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 

2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

Sharis A. Pozen, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

RFK Main Justice Building, 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530–0001, 

(202) 514–24011 (202) 616–2645 (Fax) 

August 25, 2011 

Mr. Eric Fygi, Deputy General Counsel, 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC 

20585 

Dear Deputy General Counsel Fygi: I am 

responding to your June 27, 2011 letter 

seeking the views of the Attorney General 

about the potential impact on competition of 

proposed energy conservation standards for 

residential furnaces, central air conditioners, 

and heat pumps. Your request was submitted 

under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act, as amended 

(ECPA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(5) and 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a), which requires the Attorney 

General to make a determination of the 

impact of any lessening of competition that 

is likely to result from the imposition of 

proposed energy conservation standards. The 

Attorney General’s responsibility for 

responding to requests from other 

departments about the effect of a program on 

competition has been delegated to the 

Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust 

Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). 

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust 

Division examines whether a proposed 

standard may lessen competition, for 

example, by substantially limiting consumer 

choice, by placing certain manufacturers at 

an unjustified competitive disadvantage, or 

by inducing avoidable inefficiencies in 

production or distribution of particular 

products. A lessening of competition could 

result in higher prices to consumers, and 

perhaps thwart the intent of the revised 

standards by inducing substitution to less 

efficient products. 

We have reviewed the proposed standards 

contained in the Direct Final Rule (76 Fed. 

Reg. 37408, June 27, 2011). We have also 

reviewed supplementary information 

submitted to the Attorney General by the 

Department of Energy. Based on this review, 

our conclusion is that the proposed energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces, residential central air conditioners 

and heat pumps are unlikely to have a 

significant adverse impact on competition. In 

reaching our conclusion, we note that these 

proposed energy standards were adopted 

from a Consensus Agreement signed by a 

broad cross-section of industry participants. 

Sincerely, 

Sharis A. Pozen 

[FR Doc. 2011–28146 Filed 10–28–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–1041; Directorate 

Identifier 2010–SW–109–AD; Amendment 

39–16821; AD 2010–26–52] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bell 

Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model 204B, 

205A, 205A–1, 205B, 210, 212, 412, 

412CF, 412EP Helicopters 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are publishing in the 

Federal Register an amendment which 

was sent previously to all known U.S. 

owners and operators that supersedes an 

existing airworthiness directive (AD) for 

the specified Bell Helicopter Textron, 

Inc. (BHT) Model helicopters with 

certain tail rotor blades (blades). The 

superseded AD requires, before further 

flight, replacing certain blades with 

airworthy blades. This AD retains the 

requirements of the superseded AD but 

adds new blade part numbers (P/Ns) 

and serial numbers (S/Ns) to the 

applicability. This AD was prompted by 

another incident in which the blade tip 

weight separated from a blade during 

flight, causing vibration. This incident 

led to the determination that additional 

blades could be affected, and should be 

added to the applicability. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent loss of the 

blade tip weight, loss of a blade, and 

subsequent loss of control of the 

helicopter. 

DATES: This AD is effective November 

15, 2011 to all persons except those 

persons to whom it was made 

immediately effective by Emergency AD 

2010–26–52, issued on December 10, 

2010, which contained the requirements 

of this amendment. 

We must receive comments on this 

AD by December 30, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Bell Helicopter 

Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, 

TX 76101, telephone (817) 280–3391, 

fax (817) 280–6466, or at http:// 

www.bellcustomer.com/files/. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or in person at the 

Docket Operations Office between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations Office 

(telephone: 1 (800) 647–5527) is in the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES