CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Frfday 

August 11, 1984 

-

Part III 

Department of 

Ene.rgy 

. Office of Conservation and Renewable 

Energy . 

10 CFR Part 430 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; State Petitions for 

Exemption From Federal Preemption of 

State Standards for Refrigerators and 

Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, Water 

Heaters. Room Air Conditioners, Central 

Air Conditioners, Furnaces and Kitchen 

Ranges and Ovens; Proposed 

Rulemakings and Public Hearings 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register / Vo!' 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

(Docket Nos. CE-CP-SPRM-AROO6, VAOO7, 

FLOO8, PAOO9. WI010. SC012. NM013, 

GA014. RI01S. NH016; MA017, CA018, . 

OR019, NY020. M002l. TX022. NJ023, 

IL024, UT02S. IA026, WV027. MN028. 

WA029, KS030, HI03l. TN032) 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products; State Petitions 

for Exemption From Federal 

Preemption of State Standards for: 

Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers, Freezers, Water Heaters, 

Room Air Conditioners, Central Air 

Conditioners. Furnaces and Kitchen 

Ranges and Ovens 

AGENCY: Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. DOE. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemakings 

and public hearings. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act. as amended by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act. requires that the Department of 

Energy prescribe an energy efficiency 

standard for each of 13 major household 

appliances unless it determines. by rule. 

that a standard will not result in 

significant conservation of energy. is not 

technologically feasible. or is not 

economically justified. 

On December 22. 1982. DOE published a final rule with respect to clothes 

dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens in 

which DOE determined that energy . efficiency standards for these products . would not result in a significant 

conservation of energy and would not 

be economically justified. In addition. 

the final rule set forth the procedures by 

which States may obtain exemption for 

State or local efficiency standards that are statutorily preempted as a result of a final rule with respect to energy 

efficiency standards: and procedures by 

which manufacturers may obtain a rule 

to preempt State or local efficiency 

standards for which there is no Federal 

final rule. 

On August 30, 1983. DOE published a final rule with respect to refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces in which. 

for each of these products. except 

central air conditioners. DOE 

determined that an energy efficiency 

standard would not result in a . 

significant conservation of energy and 

would not be economically justified. 

With respect to central air conditioners. 

DOE determined that an energy 

efficiency standard would result in a significant conservation of energy bul 

would not be economically justified. 

DOE has received petitions' from Z6 

States requesting. in each case. that one or more State or local energy efficiency 

standards pertaining to one or more of 

the eight covered products be exempted 

from Federal preemption. 1 

The Department of Energy is today 

proposing to grant each Stale's petition. 

Therefor. DOE is proposing to amend 

Title 10. Part 430 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to include a determination 

of exemption from Federal preemption 

for each State's applicable standard 

pertaining to the energy efficiency or 

energy use of refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. water heaters. room 

air conditioners. central air conditioners. 

furnaces and kitchen ranges and ovens. The .purpose of this notice of proposed 

rulemakings is to provide interested 

persons an opportunity to comment on 

the proposed rules and to invite 

interested persons to participate in the 

rulemaking process. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rules must be received by the 

Department by November 15. 1984. 

Oral views. data and arguments may 

be presented at any of the public 

hearings listed in the supplementary 

information section. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments. 

statements and requests to speak at the 

hearings are to be submitted to: U.S. 

Department of Energy. Office of 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

Office of Hearings and Dockets. Energy 

Efficiency Program for Consumer 

Products. Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM-

(appropriate State code). Mail Station 

68-025. Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue. SW;. 

Washington. DC 20585. (20Z) 252-9319. 

The hearings will begin at 9 a.m .• and 

will be held at the locations listed in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

Copies of the State petitions. 

transcripts of public hearings. and 

public comments Ti!ceived may be 

obtained from the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room: U.S. 

Department of Energy. Freedom of 

Information. Public Reading Room. 

Forrestal Building. Room lE-190. 1000 

Independence Avenue. SW .• Washington. DC 20585. (202) 252-£020. 

For more information concerning 

public participation in these rulemaking 

'DOE haa received petitions from: Arkansas. 

Virginia. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wi8consin. South 

Carolina. New Mexico. Georgia. Rhode Island. New 

Hampshire. Massachusetts. California. Oregon. New 

York. Missouri. Tex ..... New /8 ... ey. lIIinoi •• Utah. 

Iowa. Weal Virginia. Minne8ota. Washington. 

Kiln ..... Hawaii and Tennassee. 

proceedings. see section IV "Public 

Comment Procedures" of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael J. McCabe. U.S. Department of 

Energy. Office of Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE113. Room GF-Z17. Forrestal Building. 

1000 Independence Avenue. SW .• Washington. DC 20585, (ZOZ) 252-91Z7 

Lona Feldman. Assistant General 

Counsel fOT Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. U.S. Department 

of Energy. Mail Station GC-33. Room 

6B-144. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue. SW .. Washington. DC 20585. (Z02) 252-9507. or 

Eugene Margolis. E~q .• U.S. Department 

of Energy. Office of General Counsel. 

Mail Station GC-33. Room 6B-128. 

Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence 

Avenue. SW .• Washington. DC Z0585. 

(202) 252-9513 

U.S. Department of Energy. 

Conservation and Renewable Energy. 

Office of Hearings and Dockets. Room 

68-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 

Independence Avenue. SW .• Washington. DC 20585. (ZOZ) 25Z-9319 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

L Introduction 

a. Authority 

b. Background 

n. Discussion 

a. General 

b. Summary oC State Petitions 

m. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and 

Regulatory flexibility Reviews 

a. Environmental Review 

b. RegulalOry Impact Review 

c. Small Entity Impact Review 

IV. Public Comment Procedures 

a. Participation in Rulemaking 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

c. Public Hearings 

I. Introduction 

o. Authority 

Part B of TiUe III of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (£PCA) (Pub. L. 

94-163). as amended by the National 

Energy Conservation Policy Act 

(NECPA) (Pub. L. 95-619).2 created the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles. The consumer products 

subject to this program (referred to 

hereafter as "covered products") are: Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: 

freezers: dishwashers: clothes dryers; 

water heaters: room air conditioners; 

home heating equipment. not including 

furnaces: television sets: kitchen ranges 

and ovens: clothes washers; humidifiers 

Pari B of Title ill of EPCA. ao amended by 

NECPA. 42 U.S.c. 6291~. ia referred 10 In Ihis 

notice liS the "Act." 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32945 

and dehumidifiers; central air 

condilioners: and furnaces. as well as any other consumer product classified as a covered product by the Secretary of 

Energy. if the product uses a specified 

minimum amount of energy. Section 322. 

The Secretary has not 80 classified any 

additional products. 

Under the Act. tile program consists 

essentially of three parts; testing. 

labeling. and energy efficiency 

standards. 

For each of the covered products. 

DOE is required to establish energy. 

efficiency standards iliat are designed to 

achieve the maximum improvement in 

energy efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Section 325 (a){1) and tel. The Act 

provides. however. that no standard for a product is to be established if there is no lest procedure for the product. or. if 

DOE determines bv rule either that a standard would not result in sitnificant 

conservation of energy or that a standard is not technologically feasible or economically juslified. Section 325(b). 

Section 327 of the Act addresses ilie 

effect of federal rules concerning testing. 

labeling. and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such matters. 

Generally. all such State laws or regulations are superseded by ilie 

Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by 

DOE that an efficiency standard is not 

technologically feasible. economically 

justified. or likely to save significant 

amounts of energy is a rule ilial 

supersedes any State standard. Section 

325(b). If, because there is no Federal 

rule. a State efficiency standard is not 

superseded, persons subject to it may 

petition DOE to have it superseded on the basis that there is no significant 

State or local interest sufficient to justify 

ilie regulation and such regulation 

unduly burdens interstate commerce. Section 327(b)(l). A State whose energy 

efficiency standard is superseded may 

petition the Department for a rule iliat it 

not be superseded, on the basis that 

there is a significa,,! State or local 

interest to justify the standard and the 

State standard is a stricter standard. 

However. DOE cannot issue the 

requested rule if the Slate standard 

would unddy burt!en interstate commerce. Section 327(b)[3). 

b. Background 

On December 2:. 1982. DOE published a final rule in which DOE determined 

that energy efficiency standards for 

clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and ovens would not result in a significant 

conservation of energy and would not 

be economically justified. 47 FR 57198. 

(Referred to hereafter as the December 

1982 rule.) The December 1982 rule also 

established procedures governing 

petitions to DOE both by States to 

obtain exemption from preemption of 

State or local energy efficiency 

standards and by manufacturers to 

obtain exemption from State or local 

energy efficiency standards. 

Pursuant to the procedures 

established in the December 1982 rule. 

DOE received petitions from five States 

requesting. in each case, that ilie State 

energy efficiency standard requiring 

intermittent ignition devices (lIDs) for 

clothes dryers and! or kitchen rangll,; 

and ovens be exempted from Federal 

preemption. DOE published proposed 

rules granting the five Slate Petitions on 

August 1. 19a3. 48 FR 34858. On March 

27. 1984. DOE published final rules 

granting each State's petition for 

exemption of Siale standards for clothes 

dryers and/or kitchen ranges and~bvens. 

48 FR 11764.3 

On August 30. 1983. DOE published a final rule with respect to refrigerators 

and refrigerator-freezers, freezers. water 

heaters. room air conditioners, central 

air conditioners and furnaces. 48 FR 

39376. (Referred to hereafter as the 

August 1983 rule.) For each product. 

except central air conditioners. DOE 

determined iliat a standard would not 

result in a significant conservation of 

energy and would not be economically 

justified. With respect to central air 

conditioners. DOE detemlined that an 

energy efficiency standard would result 

in a Significant conservation of energy 

but would not be economically justified. 

II. Discussion 

a. General 

Section 327(a)(2} of ilie Act provides 

ilia! any Federal standard applicable 

under section 325 supersedes any non- identical Slate or local standard. Section 

325(b) explicitly requires iliat a 

determination by DOE iliat no federal 

energy efficiency standard for a particular product is warranted would 

also supersede any State or local energy 

efficiency standard. Section 3Z7(b )(3). 

however. provides that a State may 

petition for, and DOE may issue. a rule 

exempting a State or local standard 

from Federal supersession. 

The petitions received from the 26 

States generally request exemption for 

three generic types of energy efficiency 

standards: (1) State and local building 

code requirements pertaining to the 

efficiency of equipment installed in new 

'The five States are: California. New York. 

Wi&conlin. Minnesota end Oregon. Each Sla'e WI/S 

granted an exemption for it. State standard for 

kitchen ranges and ovena. Wisconsin. MinnellOta 

and Oregon also sought and were granled 

exemption, for thejr sttlndarch for cIothe8 dry ...... 

construction or substantial renovation. 

(2) regulations which prohibit the sale or distribution of certain products in a 

State ~hich do not meet prescribed 

levels of efficiency. an i (3) reguiations 

requiring intermittent i,;nition devices on gas appliances. For ilie first two types of 

Slate energy efficiency standards. i.e .. building code requirements and bans on 

sales and distribution of low efficiency 

products. each State's standards for 

each product type consist of a prescribed minimum energy efficiency 

level for such product (or levels in cases where the product type is broken down 

into product classes and/or more than one State standard is applicable to the 

same product type) and a prescribed 

test method applicable to such product 

for determining wheilier manufactured 

units meet or fail to meet the minimum 

efficiency level(s) preSCribed by the 

State. The third type of State energy 

effiCiency standard is prescr:ptive in 

nature. As such. no energy efiiciency 

levels or test methods need be specified. 

Since the first two types of State 

energy efticiency standards consist of 

boili prescribed minimum energy 

efficiency levels and test methods. DOE 

has. in examining each State's 

standards. considered the preSCribed 

test methods as part of ilie State 

standard for which exemption from 

preemption is being sought. In proposir:g 

to grant the States' petitions as they 

pertain to State energy efficiency 

standards of these two types. DOE is 

proposing. as a condition of ilie grant. 

iliat only the test method prescribed in 

each State standard be used by the 

Slate to determine compliance with the 

associated minimum energy efficiency 

levels prescribed in iliat standard. 

-Many of ilie petitions submitted to 

DOE request exemption from 

preemption of State and local building 

codes. Most of iliese building codes 

incorporate. either directly or by 

reference. the equipment energy 

efficiency requirements specified in the 

American Society of Heating. 

Refrigerating. and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers. Inc. (ASHRAE) Standard lor 

"Energy Conservation in New Building 

Design." first published as ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75 and later updated as ASHRAE Standard OOA-1980. Both 

versions of this consensus standard 

(referred to hereafter as ilie ASHRAE 

Standards) specify energy efficiency 

requirements for furnaces. water 

heaters. room air conditioners and 

central air conditioners. These 

requirements consist of a prescribed 

minimum energy efficiency level for 

each product (or levels in cases where . the product type is broken down inlo 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32946 Federal Registel' I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday, August·17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

product classes andlor more than one measure of energy efficiency is 

specified) and a prescribed tesl method 

applicable to each product for u~e in 

determining compliance with the 

minimum energy efficiency levels 

prescribed. 

Each State's water heater energy 

effiCiency standard references either the 

DOE water heater test procedure. 

ASHRAE Standard 90-75 or ASHRAE 

Standard OOA-19OO. The ASHRAE 

Standard OOA-19OO energy efficiency 

requirements for water heaters 

reference the DOE water heater test 

procedure. However. the ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75 energy efficiency 

requirements for water heaters 

reference the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard 

C72.1-72. "Household Automatic 

Electric Storage-Type Water Heateni" 

and Al\1S1 Standard Z21.10.3-74. "Gas 

Water Heaters, Vol. m. Circulating 

Tank. Instantaneous and Large 

Automatic Storage Type Water 

Heaters". Both of these ANSI test 

methods differ from the DOE water 

heater test procedure. As discussed. 

below. DOE is proposing to grant those 

petitions where the State or local water 

heater energy efficiency standards 

reference ANSI Standard C72.1.-72 or ANSI Standard Z21-10.3-74 test 

methods. 

Each State's room air conditioner 

energy efficiency standard references 

either the DOE room air conditioner test 

procedure, ASHRAE Standard 90-75 or 

ASHRAE Standard OOA-1980. The 

energy efficiency requirements for room 

air conditioners found in bolli ASHRAE 

Standards reference American National 

Standards Institute/ Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers (ANSI/ 

AHA.\1) Standard Z234.1-1972, 

"Standard for Room Air Conditioners". 

DOE has adopted this standard by 

reference as the DOE room air 

conditioner test procedure. Therefore. 

all State energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners do, in effect. 

reference the DOE room air conditioner 

test procedure. 

Each State's central air conditioner 

energy efficiency standard references 

eitner the DOE central air conditioner 

test procedure, ASHRAE Standard 90-75 or ASHHAE Standard 90A-1980. The 

ASHRAE Standard 90-75 energy 

efficiency requirements for central air 

conditioners refp.rence Air Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute fARI) 

Standard 210-75. "Standard for Unitary 

Air Conditicr:ing Equipment". while the 

ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 

requirements are based on a more recp.nt version of this standard, ARI 

Standard 210-78. The test methods of 

ARl Standard 210-15 and 210.:.78 are the same as those found in Test A of the 

DOE central air conditioner test 

procedure. A8 discussed below. DOE is 

proposing to grant those petitions where 

the State \ r local central air conditioner 

energy efficiency standards reference 

ARI Standard 210-78 or ARI Standard 

210-75 test methods. 

Each State's furnace energy efficiency 

standard references either the DOE 

fUrnace test procedure. ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75 or ASHRAE Standard 

OOA-1980. The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 

energy efficiency requiremenls for 

fUrnaces reference ANSI Standard 

Z21.13-1974. "Gas-Fired Low-Pressure 

Steam and Hot Water Boilers"; ANSI 

Standard Z21.47-1971. including 

Addenda Z21.47a-1974. "Gas-Fired 

Gravity and Forced-Air Central 

Furnaces"; ANSI Standard Z91.1-1972, 

"Performance Requirements for OilPowered Central Furnaces"; and 

Hydronics Institute (HI) Standard 6.6 

"Testing and Rating Standards for CastIron and Steel Heating Boilers". 

ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1980 references 

the DOE furnace test procedure. As 

discussed below. DOE is proposing to 

grant those petitions where the State or local furnace energy efficiency 

standards reference ANSI Standard 

Z21.13-1974; ANSI Standard Z21.47-

1971. including Addenda Z21.47a-1974; 

ANSI Standard Z91.1-1972: or HI 

Standard 6.6 test methods. 

Most State and local building codes 

incorporate the ASHRAE Standards in a two-step process. These codes are based 

on building codes published by one of 

several major building code 

organizations. which in turn incorporate 

the ASHRAE Standards. The Building 

Officials and Code Administrators 

International, Inc. (BOCA) is one such 

organization and is responsible for the 

documents entitled "The Basic Building 

Codes." Another is the International 

Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 

which is responsible for the documents 

entitled "The Uniform Building Codes." 

A third is the Southern Building Code 

Congress International. Inc. (SBCC) 

which is responsible for the documents 

entitled "The Standard Building Codes." 

In 1977. BOAC. ICBO. SBCC and the 

National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards 

(NCSBCS) jOintly developed the 

document entitled "Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction". Finally. the document 

entitled "The Model Energy Code." 

which Originally was jointly developed 

under a DOE contract by BOCA: lCBO. 

sacc and NCSBCS. is now maintained 

and updated annually by the Council of 

American Building Code Officials 

(CABO). The equipment energy 

efficiency requirements found in all of 

these building codes-the BOCA Basic 

code, the ICBO Uniform code. the SBCC 

Standard code. the Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. and the CABO Model 

Energy Code-are based on the 

ASHRAE Standards. 

The second type of request submitted 

to DOE involves those State regulations 

which prohibit the sale or distribution of 

certain products in the State which do 

not meet prescribed levels of efficiency. 

The levels of performance prescribed in 

these regulations vary from state 'to 

state since they are based on each 

particular State's needs. In most cases, 

these levels are more stringent than 

those specified in the ASHRAE 

Standards. 

The third type of energy efficiency 

standard represented in the petitions are those State regulations requiring 

intermittent ignition devices on gas 

appliances. 

In the process of reviewing the 26 

petitions. DOE found a number of 

instances where States requested 

exemption from preemption of State 

regulations which are not subject to 

preemption by the August 1983 rule. 

These requests usually involved State 

regulations establishing energy 

efficiency standards for equipment not 

covered by the DOE test procedures for 

the six covered products that are dealt 

with in the August 1983 rule. Any 

product which is not covered by a DOE 

test procedure. for instance, central air 

conditioners with cooling capacities 

greater than 65.000 Btu/per hour. is 

automatically exempt from any energy 

efficiency standard promulgated under 

the Act. including the preemptive effect 

of a Federal Standard. Accordingly. 

DOE has not considered these products 

in its discussions of specific State 

petitions. 

In the December 1982 rule. DOE 

established the effective dates upon 

which supersession of State and local 

standards would take place and the 

general procedures by which States 

could Petition for rules exempting their 

State or local standards for all covered 

products. DOE determined that State 

and local laws for a particular product 

would be superseded 180 days after 

Federal Register publication of a final 

rule governing that particular product 

unless Within 60 days of publication of 

the rule. a State had filed with the 

Department a notice of intent to petition 

DOE for an exemptionJor that product. 

The full petition itself had to be filed 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday. August li. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32947 

within 120 days of publication of the 

rule. When such a submission is made. 

the Slate or local rule remains in effect 

until DOE reaches a final determination 

on the Slale petit m. 

Petitions filed in response to the 

August 1983 final rule for six products 

were required to be submitted to DOE 

by December 28. 1983, in order for the· 

applicable State or local standard to 

remain in effect until the Department 

reaches a final determination on the 

petition. However. a particular Slate's 

standards were superseded as of 

February 27. 1984. when the 

Department's standards became 

effective if that State had not filed a 

petition by December 26, 1983. The 

supersession of these State and local 

regulations will remain in efC.-c! until 

DOE issues a final rule gnmting a 

State's petition. 

. New standards for a particular 

covered product (or new levels of energy 

efficiency for a particular product 

enacted by States or local governments 

that hod pre\"iously implemented 

standards), are also subject to the 

requirements of 10 CFR 430.34. The new 

standard would have 10 have been 

enacted within 60 davs of a Federal rule 

for the product suLie~t to the standard 

and a notice of intent to petition an4 the 

petition itself should have been filed in a 

timely fashion. After this period of time 

has expired. Slates may submit petitions 

for exemptions. However, Slate or local 

energy effiCiency standards for the six 

products subject to the August 1933 rule 

were superseded as of February 27, 

1984. and no new standard can be 

implemented until DOE grants the 

Stale's pe:itioll. Furthermore. any 

changes in State or local building codtls 

whif.h set forth energy efficiency 

standards for covered products are subje.:.! 11.1 Federal preemption. even if a 

prior standard level for the same 

covered product was granted an 

exemption from preemption. Thus. 

States must submit petitions to DOE for 

such exemptions each time a new 

standard level is formulated. 

In irs petition. a Slate is required to 

present information which would appear on its face to show thaI the Slale's 

regulation is more stringent than the 

Federal standard and that there is a 

significant Stale or local interest in the 

State or local regulation. However. DOE 

cannot issue the requested rule if the 

State standard would unduly burden 

interstate commerce. A party opposing 

the State's petition mny present 

information to rebut the State's initial 

submission. Information presented by 

. both the State and opposing parties 

would be open for comment and 

rebuttal. 

In reviewing the petitions. DOE will 

evaluate and analyze all factual and 

legal material presented by the 

petitioners and all other interested 

parties. It is DOE's intention in applying 

Section 327 to determine whether a State standard unduly burdens 

interstate commerce by balancing the 

significant State interest in having a standard with tlle burden. if any. on interstate commerce created by the 

standard. 

Because section 327{b)(3} of the Act 

requires DOE to consider each State 

petition individually before DOE can issue a rule exempting the State or local 

standard from preemption. DOE cannot 

issue a rule that makes a blanket 

determination for all 26 States. 

The Department must treat such 

petitions as requests for rulemaking and 

must adhere to general rulemaking 

procedures. The DOE must conduct an environmental review pursuant to the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321. to determine 

whether or not the adoption of the 

proposed rule will be a major Federal 

action having a significant impact on the 

quality of the environment. The DOE 

must also consider the impact of the 

proposed regulation on small businesses 

pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act,S U.S.C. 501 et seq. Finally. 'Under 

Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 1393. 

February 19.1981). DOE is required to 

- prepare a regulatory impact analysis if 

DOE determines that the proposed rule 

is a major rule. as that term is defined in 

the Order. 

Twenty-six States have petitioned the 

Department for a rule to allow the States 

to maintain their applicable energy 

efficiency standard for one or more of 

the six. covered products as shown in 

Table 1.< 

Each of the States has met the filing 

requirements set forth in the December 

1982 rule.' Each petition also presented 

information demonstrating that its 

regulation is more stringent than the 

Federal standard and that there is a significant State or local interest to 

justify the energy efficiency standard. 

Moreover, DOE has made a preliminary 

determination that there does not 

appear to be any undue burden on 

interstate commerce resulting from the 

State and local regulations and statutes. 

Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend 

§ 430.33 to pe:mit each of the 26 Sla les 

to maintain applicabie applian:e energy 

efficiency standards for kitchen ranges 

and ovens. refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and/or furnaces. 

• Rhode Island also has petitioned for e~er.;p!'cn 

from preemption o( its slandltrd (or kitchen rangr• 

and ovena. 

• A. mp.nlioned above. Slates may Suomit 

petitions at any time. However. for Slale sland~,,!. 

pertainin~ to one or more of the six p-odurts 

covered in the AU[i!US11983 rule to remain in err.cl 

until DOE issues a final rule granting a S!ale's 

petilion. a State would have had to me a peljtion toy 

December 28. 1983. 

TABLE I.-STATE PETITIONS 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32948 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday, August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

b. Summary of State Petitions 

ARKANSAS (AROO6). The petition 

submitted by Arkansas seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Sections 503.4 and 504.2 of the 1979 . 

Arkansas Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for Nl1w 

Building Construction as they pertain to 

water heaters, room air conditioners, 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

The Arkansas law is based on ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 504.2 of 

Arkansas' law provides that electric 

stot'age water heaters shall have a 

standby loss not exceeding 4.0 walts per 

square foot of tank surface area. Section 

504.2 of Arkansas' law provides that 

gas- and oil-fIred storage water heaters 

shall have a recovery effiCiency not less 

than 75 percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity of 2.3 + 67/V, 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy, where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. 6 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditions. Section 503.4 of 

Arkansas' law provides that room air 

conditioners and central air conditioners 

with cooling capacities of 65,000 Btu per 

hour or less shan have an energy . 

efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per 

watt-hour.' 

Furnaces. Section 503.4 of Arkans~s' law provides that gas- and oil-fired 

furnAces shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 75 per cent at . 

maximum rated output. 8 

• Arkansas' water healer standa:'d. refe .... nce the 

A!',SI Standard C"2.1-7Z lest method and Ihe ANSI 

Sta!1dard· Z21.10,3-74 test method. DOE has . 

r"vlewed thcse test methods and finds Ihat they 

dlfler from the DOE water heater Ipsl procedure. 

The Department Is lreating Ihes~ test methods a. an mte~ral part of Arkansas' water heater standards 

for whICh exemption from preemption I. being 

sought. 

• Arkan""" room air cOnditioner standard 

ref" ... nces the ANSI Standard Z234.1-n test 

melh"d which DOE adopted 8S il! test procedure 

for room air conditioners. Arkansas' central air 

conditioner slHndard references the ARI standard 

210-7. test method. DOE "as reviewed this test 

method and finds that it dIffers from the DOE 

central air conditioner test procedure. The 

Department i. treahng the ... tesl methods as an 

int€gl'Hi part of Arkan ..... room air condition .... end 

cen::.i air conditioner standards for which 

exemptIOn from preemption ... being souSht. 

• Ark~nsas' furnace &Ianda:'ds rerl/rence the ANSI 

Stannard 2::1.13-74 test method. Ihe ANSI Standard 

Z21.47-71 test method, the ANSI Standard 291.1-72 

lest method, and the HI Standard 6.6 te.t method. 

DOE has reviewed these test methods and flnds 

that they differ from the DOE furnace test 

procedure. The Department is treating tb.se le.t 

methods a~ an integral part of Arkan ..... furnace 

standards for which e"emption from preemption is 

being sought. 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petition states that there.has been 

considerable building construction in 

Arkansas designed and built in 

a~ordance with the State's regulations 

smce they became effective in 1979. The 

petition also stales that Arkansas is 

considering reviSing its appliance 

standards to upgrade them to the 

requirements in ASHRAE Standard 

9OA:-1980 to obtain additional energy 

savmgs. 

3. Additional Information 

The petitioner states that the State's 

regulations are more stringent than 

DOE's, that some appliances are 

available in the marketplace that do not 

comply with the State's regulations. and 

that interstate commerce is not 

adversely affected. Arkansas adds that 

manufacturers, distributors, and 

retailers have not commented that the 

Stale's regulations unduly burden 

interstate commerce. 

4. Proposed Determination 

. DOE has reviewed Arkansas' petition 

10 accordance with the requirements of 

Section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis.. 

DOE has determined that Arkansas has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

that § § 503.4 and 504.2 of the 1979 

Arkansas Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction are more stringent 

than DOE's rule for water heaters, room 

air conditioners, central air conditioners 

and furnaces: are justified by a 

significant State interest: and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting § § 503.4 and 504.2 of 

the Arkansas Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction from the 

preemptive provisions of Section 

327(a)(2} of the Act. 

VIRGINIA (VA007). The petition 

submitted by Virginia seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

sections M-1303.2, M-1303.6. and P1506.3.5 of the 1981 Virginia Uniform 

Statewide Building Code as they pertain 

to water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces, 

The Virginia law as it applies to water 

heaters, room air conditioners and 

central air conditioners is based on 

ASH~E Sta~dard 90-75. The Virginia 

law as It appbes to furnaces is based on 

ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1980. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section P-1506.3,5 of 

Virginia's law provides that electric 

storege water heatel'$ shall have a 

standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area. Gasand oil-fired storage water heaters with 

input ratings of 75,000 Btu per hour or 

less are required to have a recovery 

efficiency not lest than 75 percent and a 

standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3 + 67/V, expressed in percen t per 

hour of the stored thermal energy, where 

V equals the rated volume of the water 

heater in gallons.' 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. Section M-1303.2 of 

Virginia's law provides that room air 

# conditioners and central air conditioners 

with cooling capacities of 65.000 Btu per 

hour or less shall have an energy . 

efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per 

watt-hour." 

Furnaces. Section M-1303.6 of 

Virginia's law provides that gas- and oilfired furnaces with input ratings of 

225.000 Btu per hour or less and gas- and 

oil-fired boilers with input ratings of 

300.000 Btu per hour or less shall have a 

steady state efficiency not less than 74 

percent with the exception of gravity 

furnaces which shall have a steady state 

efficiency not less than 69 percent." 

2. Significant State Interest 

In its petition. Virginia states that 

appliance energy efficiency standards 

have beena part of Virginia's Uniform 

Statewide Building Code since 1978 and 

that it intends to adopt the 1984 edition 

of the Building Officials and Code . 

Administrators' (BOCA) "Basic 

Mechanical and Plumbing Code" in 

1984." The 1984 BOCA "Basic 

Mechanical and Plumbing Code" 

specifies more stringent levels for room 

air conditioners and central air 

conditioners and are based on ASHRAE 

Standard 9OA-1980. 

• Vlf'lIinia's water heater standards fP!erence the 

ANSI StlUldard C"2.1-72 test method and the ANSI 

Stand"rd ZZl.10.l-74 lest method. DOE hilS 

reviewed the ... test methods and finds that they 

differ !Tom the DOE waler heater test procedure: 

ThE' Department i8 treating the.e test methods as an 

integral part of Virginia'. water heater standards for 

which exemption from preemption is being sought. 

,. Virginia's room air conditioner st~ndard 

references the ANSI Standard ZZ34.1-7Z test 

method which DOE adopted as ita test procedure 

(or room air conditioner •. Virginia's centr .. 1 air 

conditioner standard references the ARI Stand .. rd 

210-75 test method. DOE has reviewed this lest 

method and finds that it differs from the DOE 

central air conditioner lest procedure. The 

Department is Il'eating these test methods as an 

integral part of Virginia', room air cond,tioner and 

central air conditioner .tangard! for wllleh 

e"emption froll> preemption i. being sought. 

.. Virginia's furnace atandards ref~rence the DOE 

furnace leal procedure. 

II No determination i. proposed in today's notice 

regarding Virginia's use of the 1964 BOCA Code 

since at !his time Virginia has not adopted th. 1984 

edition. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register f Vol. 49. No. 161 , Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32949 

The petition refers to a State study- of 

the existing and potential energy 

coniervation requirements of Virginia's 

law. In the study, a review of existing 

voluntary energy conservation programs 

by private industry revealed that 

heating and cooling systems that were 

energy efficient and surpassed the 

minimum requirements of the building 

code were cost effective, and the 

payback period for these devices ranged 

from fIVe to seven years. Further. the 

study found that considering the 

projected life-span of these devices. as 

opposed to the initial cost. the energy 

efficient devices proved to be a savings 

of energy and consumer capital. 

3. Additional Information 

The petition states that Virginia's 

regulations are more stringent than 

Federal requirements. that some 

appliances are available in the 

marketplace that do nol comply with the 

State regulations. and that interstate -

commerce is not adversely affected. 

Virginia states that manufacturers, 

distributors. and retailers have not 

commented that the State regulations 

unduly burden interstate commerce. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Virginia's petition 

in accordance with the requirements ol 

section S27 (b)(3) of the Act and § 4S0.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Virginia has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

the sections M-1303.2. M-1S03.6 and P1506.3.5 of the 1981 Virginia Uniform 

Statewide Building Code are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners, and furnaces; are 

justified by a significant Sta te interes4 

and do nol appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes fo issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

sections M-1303.2, M-1303.6 and 

P1506.3.5 of the 1981 Virginia Uniform 

Statewide Building Code from the 

preemptive provisions of section 327 

(a)(2) of the Act. 

FLORIDA (FL008). The petition 

submitted by Florida seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

sections 503.4(c), 503.4(e) 504.2(a). 

901.I(e}. 903.2(a). 903.8(c). 903.8(e). 

H903.2 and H903.8 of the 1982 Florida 

Model Energy Efficiency Code for 

Building Construction (1982 Florida 

Code) as they pertain to water heaters. 

room air conditioners. central air 

conditioners and furnaces. The pemwn 

also seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption sections 503.4{cl. 

5OS.4(e). 504.2(a) 903.2(a), 903.8(c] 

9OS.8Ie) and l002.1(b) of the 1984 Florida 

Model Energy Efficiency Code ror Building Construction (1984 Florida 

Code) as they pertain to water heaters. 

room air conditioners. central air 

. conditioners and furnaces. The 1984 

Florida Code was adopted on December 

21. 1~83. to become eIfecfive on June 1. 

1984. l~The Florida Codes are based on 

the ASHRAE Standards 00-75 and SOA1980. 

The 1982 Florida Coda has two 

secti?os that address minimum energy 

efficency standuds. Section & is a. prescriptive section that sets standards 

for water heaters, room and central air 

conditioners. and furnaces. Section 9 is 

a residential pomt system method. the 

Energy Perfonnance Index (BPI). which 

requires that the energy consumption of 

the entire structure not exceed a -

specified level. This is determined by 

totating the- point scores assigned to 

certain design features of the structure 

to insure that they do not exceed a 

certain specified value. 

The 1984 Fronda Code has three 

sections that address minimum energy 

efficiency standards. Section 5 is a 

prescriptive section and is similar to 

Section 5 of the 1982 Florida Code and 

pection 9 is similar to Section 9 of the 

1982 Florida Code. The 1984 Florida 

Code has a new section (Section 10) that 

is a residential prescriptive compliance 

method which al&o specifies minimum 

energy efficiency standards. Section 10 

of the 1984 Florida Code is for new 

construction of single family detached 

bousiBg and for renovation of existing 

single family and multi-family housing:. 

Section 10 specifies minimum energy 

efficiency levels for room and central air 

conditioners. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Woter Heaters. Section 504.2(a) of the 

1982 Florida Code provides that electric 

storage water heaters shall have a 

standby loss not exceeding 4.0 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area. Thia 

Section arso provides that gas· and oilfired storage water aeaters shall have a 

recovery efficiency not less than 75 

percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity oC 2.8+ 67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

.. Since the 1984 Fronda Code was not adopted 

until December n. 1983. more than eo days after 

publication of the Department's rmal role setting 

fortIt the Federal standard. thoe 1984 standan:lll 

cannot be exempted from preemption during theperiod beginning with the effective date of the 

Department'. standards (February Z7. 1984) and 

ending 30 day. after the publicatiOtr of s: imal rule 

granting the State's petillon ror the 1984 Florida 

Code. (See 111 Cf'R 430.34(b r and discussion at 4" FR 

512'l4. ('December 22:. 1982). 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallona. M 

Section 903.2(aJ (or iingle family 

housing and Section H903.2 for multif81TI11y nousit18 of the 1982 Florida Code 

specify minimum energy efficiency 

stand'8l!ds for electric. gas-fired and oilfired storage water beaten. These 

requirements are the same as those 

specified in 504.2{a) of the. 1982 Florida 

Code. 

Sections 504.2{a) and 903.2(a) of the 

1984 Florid.a Code provide that electric 

storase water heaters shall have a 

standby 10s8 not exceeding 4.0 watts per 

lQuare foot of \ank surface uea. Sections 504.2(a} and 903.2{a) of the 

Flerlda Code also provide that gas- and 

oil-fired storage water heaters shall 

have a recovery efficiency not less than 

75 percent .and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity of 2.S + fff/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons.'· 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. Section 503.4{e) of the 

1982 Florida Code provides that room 

air conditioners and central air 

conditioners with cooling capacities of 

65,000 Btu per hour or less shall have an 

energy efficiency ratio not less than 8.0 

Btu per watt-hour.'" 

Sections 901.1{e). 903.8(e). and H903.8 

of the 1982 Florida Code provide that 

room air conditioners and central air 

conditioners shall have an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 8.0 Btu per 

watt-hour.''''' 

Sections 503.4(e) and 903.8(e) of the 

1984 Florida Code provide that room air 

conditioners shall have an energy 

efficiency ratio not les8 than 7.5 Btu per 

watt-hour. Sections 503.4(e) and 903.8(e) 

of the 1984 Florida Code also provide 

that central air conditioners shall have a 

seasonal en~rgy efficiency ratio or an 

_ energy effiCiency ratio not less than 7.8 

Btu per watt-hOUT.,aB 

.. The water heater standards in the 1982 Florida 

Coda reference the ANSI Standard Cn.1-12 lest 

method and the ANSl Standard Z21.10.3-74 leat 

method. DOE haa reviewed these test methods and 

find. thaf they differ from the DOE water heater test 

procedure. The Department is treating these test 

methods as an integral part of Florida's _ter 

hea ler standard. for which exemption from 

preemption is beinl! sought. 

sa The water heater standards in the 1984 f"lorida 

Code reference the DOE water heater lesl 

procedure. 

.. The room air conditioner standard. in both the 

1982 and the 1984 Florida Codes reference the DOE 

tast procedure for room air conditioners. The central 

air conditioner standards in both the 1982 and the 

1984 FlOrida Code. refarence the DOE central air 

coodilioner procedure •. 

-fd. 

"'lel. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32950 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

The 1982 and 1984 Florida Cudes 

divide the State into nine zones or 

climatic regions. Section l002.1(b} of the 

1984 Florida Code provides that room 

air conditioners 8hall have an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 7.5 Btu per 

watt-hour. Section l002.1(b) of the 1984 

Florida Code also provides that central 

air conditioners shall have a seasonal 

energy efficiency ratio or an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 7.8 Btu per 

walt-hour for zones 1 through 6 and not 

less than 8.5 Btu per watt-hour for zone8 

7 through 9. teC . 

Furnaces. Section 503.4{c) of the 1982 

Florida Code provides that gas- and oilfired furnaces shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 75 percent. .. 

Sections 903.B( c) and H903.8 of the 

1932 Florida Code provide that gas- and 

oil-fired furnaces shall have a 

combustion efficiency not less than 74 

percent. nA . 

Sections 503.4(c) and 903.8(c) of the 

1984 Florida Code provide that gas- and 

oil-fired furnaces shall have a 

combustion efficiency not les8 than 74 

percent or not less than 69 percent for 

gravity central furnaces. to 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petition states that the 1977 . 

Florida Legislature passed two laws 

requiring local governments to adopt 

energy efficief'!t building standards in 

response to EPCA. In effect. this 

precipitated the local adoption of an 

energy code for residential buildings for 

which building permits were issued after 

December 31. 1978. The two laws 

enacted by the Florida Legislature were 

the "Florida Thermal Efficiency Code" 

ICh. 553.900. F.S.) and the "Florida 

Lighting Efficiency Code" (Ch. 553.908. 

F.S.I. which were combined in 1980 as 

the Florida Model Energy Efficiency 

Code for Building Construction. . . The petition states that petroleum 

and natural gas accounted for 50 percent 

of the fuel used to generate electricity 

for Florida in 1982. Due to a State 

population increase of 43.6 percent 

during the 1970-1980 decade. Florida 

expects a continually increasing 

demand for oil for generating electricity. 

To meet the growing demand for 

electricity. planned new generating 

capacity over the 1980-1990 decade is 

expected to be about 12,660 

,.c Id. 

" Th~ furnace sl"ndards in the 1962 Florida Code 

indude a test method. DOE has reviewed Ihis les' • 

method and fino. thaI il diffurs from the DOE 

furnace test procedure. The Department is treating 

thIS t".t method as ao integral part or Fiorid.·s 

furnace standards for which e"emption from 

preemption i. being sought. 

t1'A Id. 

•• The furnace standards in the 1984 Floridu Cod~ 

reference DOE furnace tell procedure. 

megawatts-a 80 percent increase over 

existing generating capacity. Florida 

also is planning three new high voltage 

transmis8ion lines from Georgia to meet 

future electricity demands. The petition 

states that the rising costs oCpetroieum 

and construction of new power plants 

have made it imperative that the State 

implement energy conservation 

measures. In F1orida. almost 25 percent 

of all energy Is for residential use. or 

that amount. about 60 percent is used for 

air conditioning. space heating and 

water heating. Therefore, the petition 

states, minimum energy efficiency 

standards for water heaters. room and 

central air conditioners. and furnaces 

are an effective means for resolving the 

unique energy situation in F1orida. 

3. Additionallnformation 

Originally. the Florida State law 

referenced minimum standards for 

construction to meet or exceed national 

standards such as those of ASHRAE 

(e.g .• ASHRAE Standard 90-75). 

However. nationally recognized energy 

codes or standards such as ASHRAE 

were designed primarily for climates 

where heating is more important than 

cooling. Consequently, the Florida 

Model Energy Efficiency Code for 

Building Construction was developed to 

be climate-specific for Florida. 

The Building Code is reviewed at least 

biennially. As part of this review. the 

most cost-effective. energy-saving 

equipment and techniques available for 

buildings construction are identified. 

Then a determination is made whether 

to update the Code to incorporate such 

equipment and techniques. Under the 

continuing review process, Florida has 

revised its 1982 Code and published its 

1984 Code. The petition includes a 

report recommending cost-effective 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

for wom and central air conditioners. fa 

These recommendations were 

incorporated into Florida's Code. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Florida's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

Section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Florida has 

prOVided prima facie evidence showing 

that sections 503.4(c). 503.4(e). 504.2(a}. 

901-1(e). 903.2(n). 903.8(c). 903.8(e). 

H903.2 and H903.8 of the 1982 Florida 

Model Energy Efficiency Code for 

Building Construction are more stringent 

than DOE's rule for water heaters, room 

air cofiditioners. central air conditioners 

•• Florida Public Service Commi.sion. Slale of 

F/vrido Investor Owned Utilities recommendation 

fnr a Cost Effective Level of Residential Buildins 

Construction for Energy Conservation. April 1963. 

and furnaces; and are justified by a 

significant State interest. DOE has 

determined that there does not appear 

to be an undue burden on intereslate 

commerce. Accordingly DOE proposes 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting sectiuns 503.4(c). 503:4[e), 

504.2(a}, 9OU(e). 903.2(a). 903.8Ic). 

903.8(e). H903.2 and H903.8 of the 1982 

Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code 

for Building Construction from the 

preemptive provisions of Section 327(a) 

(2) of the Act. 

DOE was further determined that 

Florida has provided prima facie 

evidence showing the sections 503.4 (c) 

and (e). 504.2{al. 903.2(a). 903.8 (cl and 

(e) and .1002.1 (b) of the 1984 Florida 

Model Energy Efficiency Code for 

Building Construction are more stringent 

than DOE's rule for water heaters. room 

air conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces: are justified by a 

Significant State interest; and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting sections 503.4 (c) and 

(e). 504.2(a). 903.2(e). 903.8 (c) and (e) 

and 1oo2,1(b) of the 1984 Florida Model 

Energy Efficiency Code for Building 

Construction from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. Since the 1984 Florida Code will not 

become effective until DOE issues a 

finnl determination on Florida's petition. 

the standard levels specified in the 1982 

Code remain in full force and effect. 

PENNSYLVANIA (PA009). The 

petition submitted by Pennsylvania 

seeks a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption 16 Pa. Code section 30.32(4). 

16 Pa. Code section 30.32(6). 34 Pa. Code 

section 38.3 and 16 Pa. Code section 

30.33 as they pertain to waler heaters. 

room air conditioners. central air 

conditioners and furnaces. 

16 Pa. Code sections 30.32 (4) and (6J 

establish minimum efficiency levels for 

water heaters and furnaces installed in 

new residential buildings. 

34 Pa. Code section 38.3 adopts 

ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 energy 

efficiency requirements for water 

heaters. roem air conditioners. central 

air conditioners. and furnaces that are to 

be installed in new commercial and 

industrial buildings. ~ 

Pennsylvania's petition also seeks a 

rule exempting from Federal preemption 

16 Pa. Code section 30.33. a performance 

desigri alternative which does not 

speCifically prescribe minimum 

.. Although F.PCA. as amended. i. mtenued tu 

d~al only with residential equipment. commercial 

.. nd industrial State building codes. which include 

residential size equipmenf in their cover aile. would 

be ,up"rseded. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No.. 161 I Friday, August 11. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32951 

efficiency fevels (or Dufding equipment. 

Such type of State regulation is not 

superseded by the Mno sfandard'" 

standard determination. As such. no 

need exists for a determination 

regarding exemption from Federar 

preempfion. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Woter Heaters. 16 Pa. Code section 

:ro.3'2(4) provides that gas- and oil-fired 

water heaters with input ratings Wlder 

75.000 Btu per hour shall have a . 

recovery efficiency not less than 75 

pel'Clmt. Additionally. 16 Pa. Code 

section 30.32(4) provides that water 

heat~rs shall either have a tank with a 

thermal resistance of at least R=5; or 

have a standby loss not exceeding 4 

walts per square foot of tank surface 

area in the case of electric storage water 

hea.ters or not exceeding the quantity of 

2.3 + 67/V, expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy, where 

V equals the rated volume in gallons, in 

the case of gas- and oil-fired storage 

water heaters. 21 . 

34 Pa. Code section 38.3 provides that 

electric storage water heaters shall have 

a standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surfaca area, or 43 

watts, whichever is greater and gas- and 

oil-med storage water heaters with 

input ratings less than 75,000 Btu per 

hour shall have a recovery efficiency net 

less than 75 percent and a standby loss 

JIOt exceeding the quantity of..2.3 + 67/ 

V, expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

Ihe rated volume in gallons. 

Additionally, 34 Pa. Code section 38.3 

provides that oil-fired water heaters 

with input ratings greater than 75,1)0() 

Btu per hour, but less than 4.000 Btu per 

hour per gallon of rated volume, shan 

have a combustion efficiency not less 

than SO percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity of 2.8 + 67/V. 

expressed in percent per bour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume in ganons. Oil-fired 

water heaters with input ratings greater 

than 75.000 Btu per hour and greater· 

than 4,000 Btu per hour per galJon of 

rated volume shan have a combustion 

efficiency not less than SO percent. %]A 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. 34 Pa. Code section 

38.3 provides that room air conditioners 

and central air conditioners are to have 

an energy efficiency ratio not less than 

6.8 Btu per watt bour.22 

.. Pennsylvania'. waler healer standards 

reference the DOE water heater lest procedure. 

:MId. 

:n Pennsylvania's room air conditioner standard 

referenees the ANSI Standard Z234.1-n test 

method which DOE adopted as its test procedure 

for room air conditioners. Pennsylvania'. central air 

Fumaces. loPa. Code section 3().32(6) 

provides that gas- and oil-fired furnaces 

shan na.ve a steady state efficiency not 

less than 74 percent. 34 Fa. Code ~tion 

38.3 provides that gas- and oi.I-fi~ed 

furnances shaH have Ii steady tate 

combustion efficiency not less ,han 69 

pexent.23 

Z. Signifieant State Interest 

Pennsylvania', petition Mates that !he 

GeneFal Assembly of the 

Commonwealth has determined tha1 it is 

in thi! interest of its citi2:mlS that 

minimllm energy conservation standards 

exist for newly constructed and 

substantially rehabilitated bUildings and 

~at energy shortages in the domestic 

supply present far-reaching prob1-ems 

that promise to persist. These energy 

shortages affect the continued efficient 

operation of the Commonwealth's"" 

economy and social strnct11re. The 

Pennsylvania legislature'S response to 

these energy shortages was to institute 

an energy conservation policy through 

regulation of building design and 

construction standards. 

The petition states that uno 

standards were in existence, home 

buyers may purchase homes containing 

inefficient equipment. resulting in higher 

energy costs (0 the consumer. Because 

Pennsylvania is located in a relatively 

cold climate, significant savings of 

energy will result from requirements 

that furnaces and water heaters meet 

certain minimum standards. The 

Commonwealth estimates that the 

preemption of its standard by the 

Department of Energy's "no-&taooard" 

rule with respect to furnacas and water 

heaters will result in the use of at least 

an additional 1..2 million gallons of fuel 

oil a year in the Commonwealth. 

Because of the Commonwealth's heavy 

use of fossil fuel and electricity 

generated by fossil fuels, a need exists 

both to conserve such energy and to 

protect the environment. Pennsylvania 

asserts that its standards are directed 

toward such an objective. In 1983, the 

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commis&ion 

(PUC} initiated a rulemaking tha t 

requires new and rehabilitated 

residential buildings to comply with the 

standards outlined in the State's 

regulations. The PUC stated that it 

desired to "improve the efficiency of 

energy consumption in Pennsylvania in 

order to reduce the utilities' future costs 

of supplying energy," and ultimately, to 

"reduce the potelltial burden of 

condl1ioner .tand'ard' references the DOE central air 

conditioner test procedure. 

·Pennsylvania·. rumance standards r~(erence 

the DOE fumace rest procedure. 

inc1easingenergy costs on IMl 

conswne.ra." 

3. Additionai information 

The petition states that energy 

efficient homes are potentially more 

ma:rk.etabie lhan those not built in 

acc:o~dance with conservation 

atandards.Pennsylvania mortgage 

lenders have indicated that they view 

prospective bome buyers a:s better risks 

when thotle buyers are l,ooking to 

purchase barnes buill in accordance 

with Pennsylvania's energy 

conservation standards. Specifically, 

lenders will allow It buyer to assume a 

larger monthly mortgage payment in 

proportion to the buyer', income if the 

home is energy efficient. 

The petition also states tlmt 

Pennsylvania'a economy stands tf> gain 

from its energy conservation standards. 

A recent study of appliance efficiency 

measures instinrted in existing 

commercial buildings determined that 

Pennsylvania would spend neaTly $76 

million less per year on imported energy 

resources were those measures 

implemented. That study estimated 

savings based on measures completed in 

only one-half of existing commercial 

buildings and it is reasonable to assume 

that comparable savings would result 

should conservation standards continue 

to apply to new commercial buildings as 

weH. . 

Finally, fhe' petitioner suggests that 

the Commonwealth's energy 

conservation standards do not impose 

an Wldue burden on interstate 

commerce. At pnblie hearings held prior 

to adoption of the current standards, 

manufacturers did not oppose 

implementation on the grounds that they 

would be unable to market their 

products in Pennsylvania. Further. 

manufacturers have met the minimum 

standards. set forth in Pennsylvania's 

regulations. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Pennsylvimia's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on this analysis, DOE bas determined 

that Pennsylvania has provided prima 

facie evidence shOwing that 16 Pa. Code 

section 30.32(4}, 16 Pa. Code section 

30.32(6) and ;W Pa. Code secfion 38.3 are 

more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners, central 

air conditioners and furnaces: are 

justified by a significant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 16 Pa. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32952 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

Code section 30.32(4), 16 Pa. Code 

I'ection 30.32(6) and 34 Pa. Code secth;m 

38.3 from the preemptive provisions of 

section 32i( a J( 2) of the Act. 

WISCONSIN (WI010). The petition 

submitted by Wisconsin seeks a ru'!! 

exempting from Federal preemptior. 

Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) and 

Wisconsin Administrative Code: lnd 

22.12. lnd 22.13. lnd 63.20 and PSC 136.04 as they pertain to room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

The petition also seeks a rule exempting 

from Federal preemption Wisconsin 

Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 as it 

pertains to room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

Wisconsin Administrative Code lLHR 

63.20 was adopted in December 1963 to 

become effective on January 1. 1984 and 

to supersede Wisconsin Administrative 

Code lnd 63.20. 24 Wisconsin Statute 

101.655 requires intermittent ignition 

devices on all new gas appliances : .... 

Wisconsin Administrative Code lnd 

22.12 prescribes minimum energy 

efficiency requirements for room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners. 

and gas- and oil-fired furnaces to be 

installed in one- and two-family 

dwellings. Administrative Code lnd 

63.20 and Administrative Code ILHR 

63.20 prescribe minimum energy . 

efficiency requirements for these same types of equipment when installed in 

public buildings. places of employment. 

and buildings consisting of three or more family units. 2

' Administrative Code lnd. 

63.20 adopts the January 1. 1980 

minimum energy efficiency requirements 

of ASHRA.E Standard 9O-i5. 

Administrative Code lLHR 63.20 adopts t~e January 1. 1984 minimum energy 

efficiency requirements of ASHRAE 

Standard 9OA-1980. Administrative 

Cooe Ind. 22.13 establishes energy 

effiCiency requirements for gas- and oil-

.. SInce Wisconsin Administrative Code lLHR 

63.20 was not adopted until December 1963. more· than 60 days after publication of the Department's 

Final rule setting forth the Federal standard. it does not get the benefil of exemption from preemption 

during the period beginning with the effective date 

of the Department'. standards (February 2:7, 1984) 

and ending 30 days after the publication of a final 

rule granting the State petition for Administrative 

Code lLHR 63.20. (See 10 CFR 43O.34(b) and 

discussion found at 47 FR 51214. December 22. 1982.) 

... By notice published In the Federal Register on 

March 2:7. 1984 (49 FR 11764). DOE exempted 

Wi&consin Slatute 1ot.655 88 it pertains to kitchen 

rang ... and ovens aod clothes dryers (rom 

preemption from the Federal "no standard" 

sli,nd"rd (or those products. Therefore. today's 

proposal addresses Wisconsin Statute lot.63:; only as il applies to furnaces. 

"In a telephone call to the petitioner for the 

purposes of clarification of Ihe coverage of Ihe State 

rules and regula lions in question. it was delermined 

that Adminislrative Code Ind 63.20 and 

Administrative Code IlJ-IR 63.20 apply to buildill88 

consisting oC three or more (amil)' units as well 8S to pubiic buildings and places of employment. 

fired furnaces installed in one- and twofamily dwellings. Administrative Code 

PSC 138.04 prohibits certain utilities 

from rendering natural gas service to 

existing residential structures converting 

to gas space heating service unless 

certain energy conservation 

requirements are met. One such 

requirement is that new central heating 

units shall comply with Administrative 

Code lnd 22.13. Administrative Code 

PSC 136.04 pertains only to the following 

investor-owned utilities: Lake Superior 

District Power Company; Madison Gas 

and Electric Company; Northern States 

Power Company; Superior Water. Light 

and Power Company; Wisconsin Fuel 

and Light Company; Wisconsin Gas 

Company; Wisconsin Service , Corporation; and Wisconsin Southern 

Gas Company. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Room Air Conditione111 and Central 

Air Conditioners. For air conditioning 

equipment, Administrative Code lnd 

22.12 prescribes a minimum energy 

efficiency ratio of 8.1 Btu per watt-hour 

for units installed in one- and twofamily dwellings. 26 Administrative Code 

lnd 63.20 prescribes a minimum energy 

efficiency ratio of 6.8 Btu per watt-hour 

for units installed in other structures. 2&\ 

Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 would 

supercede Administrative Code Ind 

63.20 to require a minimum energy 

efficiency ratio of 7.8 Btu per watthour.:1 

Furnaces. Wisconsin Statute 101.655 

(1981) prohibits the sale. distribution or 

installation of any new gas furnace or heater requiring an electrical supply for 

operation that is not equipped with a State-certified intermittent ignition 

device. For gas- and oil-fired heating 

equipment. a minimum combustion 

efficiency of 75 percent at maximum 

rated output is prescribed by 

Administrative Code Ind 22..12." 

"Wisconsin's room air conditioner standard 

references the ANSI standard Z234.1-12 le81 method 

which DOE adopted sa ita te.t procedure for room air conditioners. Wisconsin'. central air conditioner 

standard references the ARl Standard 210-7S test method. DOE has reviewed this teat method and 

finds that it difrers from the DOE central air 

conditioner lest procedure. The Department is 

treatill8 these test methods a8 an Integral part of 

Wisconsin's room sir conditioner and central air 

conditioner standards for which exemption from 

preemption i.8 being 10ught. 

-Id. 

.. Wisconsin's room air conditioner standard 

references the ANSI Standard Z234.1-72 test 

method which DOE adopted as ita test procedure 

for room air conditioners. Wisconsin's central air 

conditioner standard references the DOE central air 

conditioner test procedures. 

.. Wisconsin's furnace .tandards reference the 

ANSI Sh.ndard Z21.13-74 test method. the ANSI 

Standard ZZl.47-71 lest method. the ANSI Standard Z91.1-7Z test method. and the HI Standard 6.6 test 

Administrative Code Ind 22.13 provides 

that all combustion space-heating 

equipment to be installed in one- and 

two-family dwellings shall be provided 

with an intermittent ignition device. In 

addition. with the exception of sealed 

combustion equipment or equipment 

located in enclosures and prOVided with 

combustion air. all such equipment shall 

be provided with an automatic flue 

damper. Administrative Code lnd 63.20 

provides that all gas- and oil-fired 

heating equipment shall have a 

combustion. efficiency not less than is 

percent at maximum rated output.!"" 

Administrative Code IU-lR 63.20 would 

supersede Administrative Code lnd 

63.20 to require the same level of 

efficiency but to reference a different 

test method. 29 Administrative Code PSC 

136.04 implements the requirements of 

Administrative Code lnd 22.13 in cases 

where new gas-fired combustion space 

heating equipment is to be installed in 

existing residential structures coverting 

to gas space heating service. 

2. Significant State Interest 

Wisconsin states that it has a long 

history of supporting activities and 

technologies aimed at conserving 

natural resources. Since the State is 

without Indigenous fossil fuels. all 

natural gas. oil and coal must be 

imported. The State's current annual 

fuel bill is estimated to be $8 billion with 

78 percent of this expenditure leaving 

the State .. Wisconsin cites these 

circumstances as causing its citizenry to 

be especially conscious of ways to 

conserve fuel. to reduce energy waste •. 

and to provide protection from shortages 

which are beyond the State's control. 

The State asserts that its energy 

conservation regulations serve these 

interests'of its citizenry. Energy and cost 

savings estimates were presented for 

three or the six. regulations that are the 

subject of Wisconsin's petition. In the 

case of Wisconsin Statute 101.655 [1981) 

(gas furnaces). the State estimates the 

upper bound of tolal annual energy 

savings to be 0.215 Quads per year. 30 For 

Administrative Code Ind 22.13 

(furnaces). the upper bound of total 

annual energy savings is estimated to be 

method. DOE has reviewed these te.1 methods and 

finds that they differ from the DOE furnace test 

procedure. The Department is trea ting these lesl 

methods as an integral part of Wisconsin's furnace 

slandards for which exemption from preemption is 

beill8 sought. 

"'lei. 

aWisconsin's furnace standards reference the 

OOE furnace lest procedure. .... 

)OThis •• Iimate is based on 33.000 gas apace 

heating equipment unit sales per year and an annual 

energy sa,ings of 6.5 million Btu per year per unit. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Re~ister I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17, 1984 I Proposed Rules 32953 

0.054 Quad per year.:" For 

Administrative Code PSC 136.04 (g<lS 

furnaces 1. the upper bound of of total 

annual energy savings is estimated to be 

0.11 Quad per per. 32 In the cases of . 

Administrative Codes lnd 22.12. lnd 

63.20. and lLHR 63.20. the Slate did not 

venture estimates of the energy savings 

attributable to these regulations. 

Wisconsin acknowledges that normal 

market mechanisms might have 

achieved some portion of the energy 

savings which the State attributes to.its 

energy conservation regulations if the 

regulations had not been adopted. but 

finds that there is no reliable method 

upon which to base an estimate. 

Wisconsin notes that market failures 

exist..which limit the market's ability to 

respond to price signals alone. 

3. Additional Information 

\'\'isconsin comments Ihat ils Statute 

101.655 (1981) banning pilot lights and 

Administrative Code PSC 136.04 

requiring intermittent igr.ition devices, 

and in many cases flue dampers. on gas 

space heating equipment installed in 

existing residential buildings that were 

converted to natura! gas service have 

been in effect since 1978 and. in that 

time. no manufacturer has appealed to 

the State to re\'erse its ruling on the 

basis of loss of sales or inability to ship 

products across Slate lines. Further. 

public hearin!!s held in the State in 

September 1980 to review alleged 

problems with the requirements of 

Adminjst~ati\'e Code lod 22.13 led the 

Wisconsin the Wisconsin Department of 

Industry. Labor and Human Relations to 

conclude that the alleged problems were 

llnfounded. the requirement saves· energy. sufficient quantities of 

complying furnaces were a\'ailable to 

meet consumer needs. and 

manufacturers supported the regulation. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Wisconsin's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its anlilvsis. DOE has determined 

that Wi5cl1nsin has provided prima facie 

evidence showing that Wisconsin 

Statute 101.655 (1!)81) and Wisconsin 

Administration Code: lnd 22.12. lnd 

22.13. In:::l 63.20 and PSC 136.04 are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners. 

'1 This estimate is ba~ed on 4.425 comhustion 

space heating equipment unit soles pp.r yp.ar and an 

annual energy sa\"lngs of 12.2 miiHun a.u per year 

pcr unit. 

37This ~slimate is based on 9.t~) existing 

resiclenlial homes eo,wcrling Itl !las "pace healing 

equipm.ml per year and an annu»1 ene1'l!Y ""vinga of 

12.2 million Btu per year per uni!. 

and furnaces: are justified by a 

significant State interest and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending 

Section 430.33 exempting Wisconsin 

Statute 101.655 (1981) and Wisconsin 

Administrative Code: lnd 22.12. Ind 

22.13. Ind 63.20 and PSC 136.04 from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2} of the Act. 

DOE has further determined that 

Wisconsin has provided prima fdeie 

evidence showing that Wisconsin 

Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 is more 

stringent than DOE's rule for room air 

conditioners, central air conditioners 

and furnaces; is justified by a significant 

Siaie interest: and does nol appear to 

impose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. Accordingly. DOE proroses 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempling Wisconsin Administrative 

Code ILHR 63.20 from the preempth'e 

provisions of section 327(a)(2} of the 

Act. Since Wisconsin }I,dm:nistrative 

Code ILHR 63.20 will not become 

effective until 30 days after the 

publication of a final determination by 

DOE granting the State's petition for 

Administrative Code ILHR 63.20. 

Wisconsin Administrative Code Ind 

63.20 will remain in full force and effect 

until such time. 

SOUTH CAROUNA (SCOn). The 

petition submitted by South Carolina 

seeks a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption sections 6-10-10, et. seq .• 

Code of Laws of South Carolina. 1976 

(1982. Cum. Supp.) as they pertain to 

water heaters. central air conditioners 

and furnaces. In particular. section 6-

10-30 of the South Carolina 1a'.'I' adopts 

as the State standard the current edition 

of Appendix J (Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction) to the Standard Building 

Code of the Southern Building Code 

Congress International Inc. The current 

edition of Appendix J is the 1983 edition 

of the "Mode! Energy Code" as 

published by the Council of American 

Building Officiaill. The 1983 Model 

Energy Code is based on ASHRAE 

Standard SOA-1980. 

The 1983 Model Energy Code presents 

three approaches for compliance: a 

systems approach (Chapter 4); a 

component performance approach 

(Chapter 5); and a specified acceptable 

practice approach (Chapter 6). Minimum 

energy efficiency standards are 

specified in the component performance 

and the specified acceptable practice 

approaches. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. For electric storage 

water heaters. Sections 504.2.1.1 and 

604.1.1 of the adopted code specify a 

maximum standby loss of 4.0 wa:ts per 

square foot of tank surface area. For 

gas- and oil-fired water heaters with 

input ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or 

less. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 of the 

adopted code specify a maximum 

standby loss of the quantity 2.3 + 6i!V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy, where V equals 

the rated volume in gallons. For oil-fired 

water heaters with input ratings of 

greater than 75.000 Btu per hour. 

sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 specify a 

minimum combustion efficiency of 80 

percent; and if the input rating of these 

oil-fired water heaters exceeds 4.000 Btu 

per hour per gallon of self-stored water. 

the shmdby loss shall not exceed the 

quantity 2.8 + 67!V. expressed in 

percent per heur of the stored thermal 

energy, where V equals the rated 

volume in gallons." 

Central Air Conditioners. For centra-I 

air conditioners. sections 503.4.5 and 

603.2.1 of the adopted code specify a 

minimum energy efficiency ratio of 6.8 

Btu per watt-hour." 

Furnaces. Sections 503.4.3 and 603.2.2 

of the adopted code specify a minimum 

steady state efficiency of 74 percent of 

forced air furnances, low pressure steam 

boilers, and hot water boilers and a 

minimum steady state efficiency of 69 

percent for gravity central furnaces." 

2. Significant State Interest 

In its petition. South Carolina states 

that it is without indigenous fossil fuels 

and must import all its coal. oil. and 

natural gas. that the above mentioned 

appliances represent the largest energy 

users in most buildings: that to 

retrogress to a "no-standard" standard 

would be to waste the time. effort and 

money expended on energy 

conservation by both the public and 

private sectors; and that with the hillh 

cost of construction of electrical -

generating units. a serious setback to 

.load management pohcies would result. 

3. Additional Information 

South Carolina asserts that since 

enactment, in July 1979, no manufacturer. wholesaler. or relai!er hilS 

appealed to the State to amend its law 

based on loss of sales or inability to ship 

products across State lines. 

.. South Carolina', water heater standards 

reference the DOE water heater te.t procedure. 

.. South Carolina'. centra! air conditIoner 

atandard references the DOE central air condilll}oP' 

test procedure. 

"South Carolina's furnace standards rderencp 

the DOE fUnlace lest procedure. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

. ' 

32954 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed South Carolina's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis, DOE has determined 

that South Carolina has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 

504.2.1.1.504.2.1.2. 503.4.3. 503.4.5, 

603.2.1. 603.2.2.. and 604.1.1 of the 1983 

Model Energy Code adopted by section 

6-1()-10 et. seq .• Code of Laws of South 

Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.) are 

more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. central air conditioners and 

furnaces: are justified by a significant 

State interest; and do not appear to 

impose an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting sections 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2. 

503.4.3. 503.4.5. 603.2.1. 603.2.2. end 

604.1.1 of the 1983 Model Energy Code 

adopted by section 6-1()-10 et. seq .• 

Code of Laws of South Carolina. 1976 

(1982. Cum. Supp.) from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

NEW MEXICO (NM013). The petition 

submitted by New Mexico seeks a rule ' 

exempting from Federal preemption 

section 5301 of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopted by the 

State of New Mexico on April a. 1980. as 

it pertains to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditionerJl 

and furnaces. Section 5301(b) of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopts the 

requirements of the December 1977 

Code for Energy Conservation in New 

Building Construction. These . 

re.quirements specify, among o.ther 

matters. minimum energy efficiency 

levels for water heaters. room and 

central air conditioners. and furnaces. 

These levels are essentially identical to 

the requirements specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 9()-75. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 504.2(a) of the 

adopted Code provides that electric 

storage water heaters shall have a 

standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area, and 

. that gas- and oil-fired storage water . heaters shall have a recovery efficiency 

not less than 75 percent and a standby 

loss not exceeding the quantity of 

2.3+67/V. expressed in precent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the rate volume in gallons. 3. 

"" New Mexico's waler heater standards reference 

the ANSI Standard C72.1-72 test method and the 

ANSI Standard ZZ1.1..o.3-74 test method. DOE haa 

reviewed these test methods and finds that they 

differ from the DOE water heater test procedure. 

The Department is treating these test methods as an 

Room Air Conditioners and Centrol 

Air Conditioners. Section 50.34(e) of the 

adopted Code provides that room air 

conditioners and ceniral air conditioners 

shan have an energy effiCiency ratio nol 

less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour. l1 

Furnaces. Section 503.4(c) of the 

adopted Code provides that gas- and oilfired furnaces shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less th an 75 percent. 38 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petition states that New Mexico's 

standards produce life-cycle cost 

savings for consumers: provides 

reasonable paybacks on the additional 

first cost of purchasing regulated 

products: does not degrade the 

performance of the products; saves 

substantial amounts of fossil fuels 

(stated to be a significant concern in 

New Mexico); will not Jessen 

competition for sales of regulated 

products from current levels if exempted 

from Federal supersession: and does not 

create an undue burden on.interstate commerce. 

3. Additional Information 

New Mexico asserts that the great 

majority of its citizens want their 

economic interests protected by the 

existing standards for water heaters. 

room air conditioners, central air 

conditioners and furnaces. and that 

since their initiation no written or verbal 

objections to the standards have been 

received by the New Mexico Energy and 

Minerals Department from consumers, 

manufacturers. distributors. or the 

building industry. The petition further 

states that the Code places no undue 

burden on interstate commerce and 

neither adversely affects competition 

nor lessens the utility or the 

performance of the covered products 

and that the overall impact of the Code 

integrarpart of New'Mexico's water heater 

standards for which exemption far preemption is 

being 8ought. 

., New Mexico's room air conditioner standard 

references the ANSI Standard ZZ3U-72 \est 

method which DOE adopted as its test procedure 

for room air conditionel'!!. New Mexico's centra! air 

conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 

21()"75 test method. DOE haa reviewed this test 

method and finds that it differs from the DOE 

central air conditioner test procedure. The 

Department is treating these test methods as an inlegral pari of New Mexico's room air condilioner 

and central air conditioner slandards for which 

exemption from preemption is being sought. 

,. New Mexico's furnace standards reference the 

ANSI Standard Z2l.13-74 lest method. the ANSI 

Standard ZZl.47-71 lest method. the ANSI Standard 

Z21.1-72 test metbod. and the HI Standard 6.6 test method. DOE has re\'iewed these test methods and 

finds that they differ from the DOE furnace test . procedur~. Th~ Department is treating these test 

methods as an integral purt of New Me'<lco's 

furnace standards for which exemption from 

preemption is being soughl. 

is to increase dollar savings for the 

consumer and to conserve energy. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed New Mexir.o·s 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 327(b]{3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on this analysis. DOE has determined 

that New Mexico has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 

503.4(c). 503.4(e) and 504.2(a) of the 1977 

Code for Energy Conservation in New 

Building Construction adopted by 

section 5301 of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopted by the 

State of New Mexico on April 8. 1980. 

are more stringent than DOE's rule for 

water heaters. room air conditioners, 

central air conditioners and furnaces: are justified by a Significant Stale 

interest: and do not appear to impose an 

undue burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

sections 503.4{c), 503.4(e) and 504.2{a} of 

the 1977 Code for Energy Conservation 

in New Building Construction adopted 

by section 5301 of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform building Code the State of New 

Mexico on April 8, 1980. as they pertain 

to water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces 

from the preemptive provisions of 

section 327(a)(2) of the Act. 

GEORGIA (GA014). The petition 

submitted by Georgia seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings. 

1981. Edition. O.C.G.A. Sec. 6-2-20, e/ 

seq, as it pertains to water heaters. room 

air conditioners. central air conditioners. 

and furnaces. The Georgia Code is 

based on ASHRAE Standard 90.'\-1980 

as of the Code's last revision. adopted 

on November 18. 1981. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 504.,2{a) of the 

Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings 

specifies the energy efficiency . 

requirements for water heaters. Electric 

storage water heaters are required to 

have a standby loss not exceeding 4 

watts per square foot of tank surface 

area. or 43 watts. whichever is greater. 

Gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters 

with input ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or less are required to have a recovery 

effiCiency not less than 75 percent and a 

standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3 + 67/V. expressed ill percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy. where 

V equals the volume of the water heater 

in gallons. Oil-fired water heaters with 

input ratings exceeding 75.000 Blu per 

hour are required to have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 60 percent. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday, August 17, 1984 I Proposed Rules 32955 

Additionally, oil-fired water heaters 

with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu 

per hour but less than 4.000 Btu per hour 

per gallon of self-slored water are 

required to have a standby loss not· 

exceeding the quantity of 2.8 + 0.002Q/ 

V, expressed in percent per hour ofthe 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. and Q equals the rated input of 

the water heater in Btu per hour. 39 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. Saction 503.4(e) of the 

Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings 

provides that room air conditioners and 

central air conditioners with cooling 

capacities of 65.000 Btu per hour or less 

shall have an energy efficiency ratio not 

less than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour ..... 

Furnace,;. Section S03.4(.;} of the . 

Georgia Sla Ie Energy Code for Buildings 

provides that gas- and oil-fired 

residential furnaces will1 input ratings 

'under 225.000 Btu per hour and gas- and 

oil-fired residential boilers with input 

ratings under 300.000 Btu per hour are 

required 10 have a steady state 

combustion efficiency not less than 74 

percent. except in the case of gravity 

central furnaces which are required to 

have a steady slate combustion' 

efficiency not less than 69 percent.·1 

2. Significant State In!erest 

Since its Energy Code became 

effectivE in 1978, Georgia estimates the 

total energy cost savings associated 

with the installation of new g<l5 and oil 

water heaters to be $12,000,000 with 

electric water heaters accounting for an additional $4,750.000.'2 For central air 

conditioners. Georgia e~!irr.ates the total 

energy cost savings since its Energy 

Code became effeclh-e to be 

$151.200.000." For furn.'!ces. Georgia 

ltClh"')~<.1·S '!.\i:;Itqr h~u:er &hmda!"ds reft:'rencc the 

DOE wn!~r L~a!er lest procedure. 

.uG~O!"g;d r; room air cond~ti(\ner standa~ 

references tl,. ... o,;SI Slardard z.:!.34.1-n test 

melh"d which DOf: adup!ed a. ils teil procedure 

for rOQr:1 air COT!~lilioners. Ceoroj'fti centn:tJ air 

conditioner .Iandal'd rerere"~e. Ih" DOE een!ral air 

ccndilioner tesl procedure. 

41 Gf:nrgia's furnace standards reference the DOE 

fomdce test procedure. 

dThp.se ene;gy cn,' fta\'!ngs e5!imat~s are b~8t:d 

on the assumptions !hat the G~"""'~ia F.nergy C:...'l(je 

resu!!s in an ar,nua! energy cost ".ving! fGr electric 

wa:er h~9tt!rs t.lfs.~ ncr Vf"ar (the norr..:naJ ~nnuaJ 

operating co,t O,iferenc~· between a unit with an 

energy fac'or of 0.89 and one with ao enar~v factor 

of O.:7) and an ar::nuitl ~nr.-rgy cest savin~' io!" gas 

w(jter heifters of $32 per YPiii i:hf' nominal ann;;aJ 

ope:-atirrg c.oet difff"::"enct' bct\\cer. a unit with an 

ene~y fa:':tor of 0.53 and onf whh ar. em~rg~ far-tor 

of 0.4-1). 

(JTh!s er.p~:~' cos! savings estirna!€ ;! bused on 

the aS5umpt;un that the Gel'!!::ia Ene1"RY Code 

results :n an annudl ~ne:-gy l:n-st s'!\'in8~ ior ce"I:-8J 

air conditioners ofS1.:!6 per year ffl'\e nomindJ 

annual opf'raHn~ CC5t diHp.rence bet weer. a unit 

wilh an SF.ER of 7.5 and one wilh an SEF.F. of 6.0J 

estimates the total energy cost savings 

since its Energy Code became effective 

to be $80.000.000 .•• 

3. Additional Information 

George asserts that the numerous 

public hearings held' in 1977 regarding 

the then proposed Georgia Energy Code 

produced concurrence from both 

manufacturers and consumers regarding 

the equipment energy efficiency 

specifications. Further, the standards 

have not lessened the utility or 

performance of water heaters, room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners or 

furnaces or the competition among 

manufacturers of these products. 

Finally. Georgia asserts that it imports 

97 percent of the energy it consumes: 

hence. any savings in energy 

consumption benefits its citiz"ns and 

industries by freeing capital for -. 

commitment to other purposes. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Georgia's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Georgia has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

that sections 503.4 (cl and (e) and 

504.2(a) of the Georgia State Energy 

Code for Buildings, 1981 Edition. 

O.C.G.A. Sec. 8-2-20. et seq. are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heater". room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are 

justified by a significant Sidte interest; 

and do not appear to impose an u.l'ldue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exemption 

sections 503.4 (cl and (e) and 504.2(a) of 

the Georgia State Energy Code for 

Buildings. 19()1 Edition. O.C.G.A. Sec. 8-

2-20. et seq. from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

RHODE ISLA."lD (RI01S). The petition 

submitted by Rhode Island seeks a rule 

exemptil'lg from Federal preemption 

sections 503.4 (c) and [e), 504.2(a) (l) and 

(2),603.2 (a) and (b). 604.1(a) and 702 of 

the Rhode Island State Building Code. 

revised as of July 1. 1983, as they pertain 

to water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners. furnaces and 

kitchen ranges and ovens. 46 The Rhode 

and tin associated annual energy savh'iS& of 1000 

kilowall-hours per year. 

"This enel'l!Y coat savings estimate i. based on 

an estimated 65.000 new furnace installations per 

year since the Gaol'llia Energy Code beclime 

effeGtiv~. 

.. Since DOE's D<!cember 1982 rolF required State 

petitions for exempt jon Crom preemption for kitchen 

rang'" and oven. 10 b. submilled by April 21. lQl\3. 

Rhude 1.land·, standard for kitchen ranges and 

- Island State Building Code adopts by 

reference the December 1977 Code of 

Energy Conservation in New Building 

Construction. This adopted Code 

incorporates three alternative 

approaches for compliance: a systems 

analysis approach. a component 

performance design approach and an 

acceptable practice approach applicable 

to conventional residential buildings 

and other small buildings which IDeet 

certain requirements. The provisions of 

the latter two approaches found in this 

Code incorporate minimum energy 

efficiency requirements for space 

heating and cooling and water heating 

equipment based on ASHRAE St(;mlard 

90-75. Further. section 702 of the Rhode 

Island Stale Building Code requires 

intermittent ignition devices on certain 

gas appliances. 

1. State Standard Levels 

t-'Vater Heaters. Sections 504.2(al (1) 

and (2) and 604.1(a) provide that electric 

stora;;;e water heaters shall have a 

slandby loss not exceeding 4.0 watls p.er 

square foot of tank surface area and that 

gas- and oil-fired storage water heate!'s 

shall have a recovery efficiency net less 

than 75 percent and a standby less nol 

exceeding the quantity of 2.3 + 67/V, 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

slored L"1ermal energy. where V is the. 

rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons:" 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. Sections 503.4[1:) and 

603.2(0) provide that room air 

conditioners and central air conditioners 

with cooling capacities of 65.000 Btu per 

hour or less shall have an efficiency 

ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per walthour .• 1 

Furnaces. Sections 503.4(c) and 

603.2(b) provide that gas- and oil-fired 

fumances shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 75 percent at 

ovens i. preempted until 30 dB)'! arter DOE issu .... 

final rul" wllh regard to the g:-anting of lhe j)9,tilJon. 

"Rhode Island's water heater standards 

referencp. the ANSl Standard CiZ.1-72 test method 

and the }o_"51 Stand~rd z.."1.10.3-74 test method. 

DOE haa reviewed these test methods and finda 

that they t!Hier from the DUE water heater test 

procedure. The O"par!ment is treating Ihes. test 

method. as an integra; paM of Rhode Is!and', waier 

heater standards for which exemption from 

preempt!on i. twins .ought. 

., Rhod.: Island's room air conditioner star.do:"d 

references t.~. ANSI St~ndard ZZS';.l-;: test 

method which DOt adopted as its res! pro::~J\l:'E! 

for room dir conditioners. Rl,ode lsl.:;.nj s cen!ral alt 

conditioner standard rde,.nce. the ARI Stan::in:d 

21~7S te.! method.lJOE ha~ l'evi.".d !h:s ",! 

method and finds thdt 1: djf{~:,s f:crn the O:.JE 

c"nt~al .ir conditioner te", p,oceLl"r •. T~~ 

Department is treating these test mcth0.is as an 

lnlegnli part of Rhode holand's room air rO'ld!!i,)nt'r 

and cer!tral air conditioner stendarc. re, which 

exemption from preempt;.,," is being .o~g~t. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32956 Federal Register' VoL 49. No. 161 I Friday, August 17, 1984 I Proposed Rules 

maximum rated output. <MIn addition. the 

Rhode Island State Building Code. 

Section 7O.Z. provides that all gas 

furnaces manufactured after January 1. 

1985, except those fueled by Iiquified 

petroleum gas. shall be in talled with an 

intermittent ignition device. 

Kitchen Ranges and Ovens. Section 

102 provides that all gas kitchen ranges 

and ovens manufactured after January 1. 

1985. except those fueled by liquified 

petroleum gas. shall be installed with an intermittent Ignition device. 

2. Significant State Interest 

Rhode Island points out that a review 

of currently available equipment shows 

that there are some models of products 

covered by the State Building Code 

which do not meet the energy efficiency 

requirements of the Code. Without its 

equipment energy efficiency , 

requirements. Rhode Island contends 

that energy costs to consumers and 

energy resource consumption within the 

State would be expected to increase. 

Rhode Island states that it is not in iii 

position. nor has the resources to 

conduct a lengthy analysis of energy 

savings attributable to these regulations. 

However. an estimate of the energy cost 

savings. associated with its pilot light 

ban. of $27 per pilot light per year was 

made. "Rhode Island estimates that 

there are about 500,000 to 600.000 gas 

pilot lights operating in the State at the 

present time. 

S. Additional Information 

In its petition. Rhode Island asserts 

that its effiCiency regulations are not a 

burden on interstate commerce. After ~eviewing the records of the State ' 

Building Commissioner's office. the 

State found that no manufacturer. 

retailer or distributor of the products 

covered by the Code has ever opposed 

the Code criteria. Thus. the State 

concludes that manufacturers. retailers 

and distributors of these products ha.ve 

not been adversely affected by the 

regulations and. therefore. the 

regulations are not a burden on 

interstate commerce. In its petition Rhode Island llso states 

that in 1984 it will adopt the 1984 edition 

of the Building Officials and Code 

"Rhode Island's furnace standards reference the 

ANSI Standard ZZ1.l3-74 test method, the ANSI 

Standard z.."1.47-71 tesl method, the A."'SI Standard 

Z91.1-72 test method. and the HI Standllrd 6,6 leat 

method. DOE haa reviewed Ihese Jest methods and 

Ilnds that th"y differ from tbe DOE furnance test 

procedure, The Department is treating these teal 

methods as lin integral part of Rhode Island', 

fumaee standards for which exemption from 

preemption is being BOught 

"This C08t savings estimales i8 based on 1982. 

dollars and gaa priees and a typical pilbt light 

energy consumption of" million Btu per year. 

AdminLstrators Basic Mechanical and 

Plumbing Codes which contain criteria 

for room air conditioners and central air 

conditioners based on ASHRAE 

Standard 9OA-1980 at the January 1. 

1984 levels. The State will be required to 

submit a new petition for exemption 

from preemption for any changes in its 

regulatory standards once such changes are adopted. . . 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Rhode Island's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that Rhode Island has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 

503.4 (cl and (el, 504.2(a) (1) and (2). 

6OS.2 (a) and (bl. 604.1(a) and 702 of the 

Rhode Island State Building Code. 

revised a8 of July 1, 1983 .• are more 

stringent that DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air E:Onditioners. central 

air conditioners. furnaces. and kitchen 

ranges and ovens; are justified by a 

significant State interest; and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to issue a rule exempting 

Sections 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2(a) (1) 

and (2). 6OS.2 (a) and '(b). 604.1(a) and 

702 of the Rhode Island State Building 

Code, revised as of July 1.1983. from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2} of the Act. 

r..'EW HAMPSHIRE (NH016). The 

petition submitted by New Hampshire 

seeks a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption the State Regulation RSA 

155:D as it pertains to water heaters. 

room air conditioners, central air 

conditioners and furnaces. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 504.2(a)(1) of 

New Hampshire's regulation RSA 155:D 

provides that electric storage water 

heaters shall have a standby loss not 

exceeding 4.0 watts per square foot of 

tank surface area. Part 504.2(a)(2J , pro\ides that gas- and oil-fired storage 

water heaters shall have a recovery 

efficiency-not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3+ 67/V. expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy, where 

V equals the rated volume in gallons. s.o 

"New Hampshire's water healer standards 

reference Ihe ANSI Standard Ci2.1-72 I".t method 

and the ANSI Standard ZZUD,3-74 tesl method. 

DOE htl. reviewed these test methods and finds 

that th"y differ from the DOE water heater tes' 

procedure. The Department is 'reating these test 

methods .a an integral part of New Hampshire', 

waler heater standards for which exemption from 

preemption is being IOught. 

These waler heater provisions are 

identical to those of ASHRAE Slandard 

90-75, effective January 1. 1977. 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

AirCollditioners. Section 503.4(ej of 

RSA 155:D provides that room and 

central air conditioners shall have an 

energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 

Btu per watt-hour.·1 This provision is 

identical to the room and central air 

conditioner provisioll "f ASHR.4,.E 

Standard 90-75. effective January 1. 

1980. 

Furnaces. Section 50S.4(cJ orRSA 

155:D provides that gas- and oil-fired 

furnaces shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 75 percent at 

maximum rated output.uThis pfovision 

is identical to the furnace provisions of 

ASHRAE Standard 90-75, effecth'e 

January 1. 1977. 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petitioner submits that there is 

Significant State interest in support of 

the State's minimum performance 

standards and therefore the standards 

should not be superseded. Because of 

rising fuel costs and heavy petroleum 

dependence, the imposition of minimum 

efficiency standards represents a 

reasonable method of reducing energy 

consumption. 

S, AdditionallnCormation 

The petitioner states that to the best 

of New Hampshire's knowledge, State 

standards have not created any 

situation in which a customer or 

company has had to pay any additional 

product cost due to Code compliance, In 

addition. no manufacturer or retailer has 

reported any lessening of the utility or 

performance of central air conditioners, 

any lessening or competition l;Jetween 

companies, or any burden on lnterst<1te 

commerce. 

.. New Hampshire's room air conditioner 

standard references the ANSI Standard Z234,1-~2 

leal method which DOE adopted as its test 

prot;edure for room air conditioners, New 

Hampshlre's cenlral air condilloner standard 

references the ARI Standard 210-75 test meth",!, 

DOE has reVIewed this teat me!hod and finds Ihdt il 

differs from the DOE central oir condit,oner test 

procedure, The Uepartment is Ireatlll8 these Ipst 

method. as an inlegral pdrt of New Hamps~lTes 

room air conditioner and central air conditioner 

standards for which exemption from preemptIOn IS 

being BOu;th L 

.. New Hampshire's furnace standards reference 

Ihe ANSI Standard ZZU3-74 test method, th. A:-;Sl 

Siandard 91.1-72 test method and the Hl Standard 

6,6 lest method, DOF. has re"iewed the ... lest 

mf!thvda and finds that they difler from the DOE 

furnace lest procedure. The De:pHrtmnnl19 tretitlng 

the.e teo I method. a. an integral part of Now 

Hampshire'. fUEfl8C1! standards for which .xempli(1n 

from preemption is being sought. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. J\ullust 17. 1984 / Proposed Rules 32957 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has re,viewed New Hampshire's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b}(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has.determined 

that New Hampshire has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 

SOlA (c) and (e) and 504.2{a} (1) and (2) 

of l"ew Hampshire Regulation RSA 

155:D are more stringent than DOE's rule 

lor water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant State 

interest; and do not appear to impose an 

undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a final rule amending § 403.33 exempting 

Sections 503.4 (cl and Ie) and 504.2(a) (1) 

and (21 of l"ew Hampshire's Regulation 

RSA 155:0 from the preemptive 

provisions of Section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

MASSACHUSE'ITS f}..1A017). The 

petition submitted by Massachusetts 

seeks a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption Article 17. section 2.14.8(a}. 

and Article 20. section 2010.6.1 and, 

2010.6.3 of the Massachusetts State 

Building Code as they pertain to water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces. 

1. Slate Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Article 17. section 

2.14.8(a) of the Massachusetts State 

Building Code provides that electr'ic 

&torage water heaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area and that 

gos- and oil-fired storage water heaters 

shall have a recovery efficiency not less 

than i5 percent and a standby loss not 

e:-.ceeding the quantity of 2.3 + 67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated ,,"o/ume in gallons. '3 

Roam Air CondWollers and Central 

Air Conditioners. Article 20. section 

::010.6.3 of the Massachusetts State 

Building Code provid!!s that room air 

conditioners and central air conditioners 

shall htive a energy efficiency ratio not 

less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour for units 

wHh cooling capacities uncler 65.000 Btu 

per hour. 54 

.,' t\,lassrit:husf-tfs wu!er h~(Jter stundards 

refp~'(1cP t~f' ANSI SHlOciau1 Ci:!.1-iZ t~·!>t Olt!hrnJ 

ant! 'he A!'iSI Stann .. "l Z:UO 3-~4 te't me:h"d 

DOr has N!vipw"d the •• test method. and fmd. 

th"t thp.y differ from th .. ODE water heM'''' tpst 

procedure, The Op!'.'tm"!ll i. f, ... ting Ih"o" test 

mf'lt\ods as «In intt?~rHI parf of ~v1assnchusPtt'r water 

heufpr !'-ltandards for which {"xrrr.:ption fnml 

prf'"f"mption is being sought. 

;. M~:;sAchu~eU':; room air conditiunpf stHndl:1rd 

.... rerence. the A!\'SI Stannard Z!34,1-:-Z leM 

m~lh!ld which DOE adopled as its test procedure 

for roum air conditioners. MaSSLtl:husett's centrai air 

rt",ditioner stHndard references the ARI StHndard 

Furnaces. Section 2010.6.1 of the 

Massachusetts State Building Code 

provides that gas- and oil-fired comfort 

heating equipment shalf have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 

percent at maximum rated outpuL" 

2. Significant Slate Interest 

Massachusetts states that a review of 

currently available U.S. equipment 

shows that there are covered products 

manufactured that do not meet the 

minimum criteria of the Massac.husetts 

State Building Code. Without such 

minimum criteria. the energy costs to consumers and energy resource consumption within the Stale would be 

expected to increase due to any new constuction containing less efficient 

products. ;" 

3. Additional Information 

Massachusetts states that since these 

regulations became a part of the 

Massachusetts State Building Code in 

1978, no manufacturer. retailer. or distributor of these products has 

indicated opposition to the Code 

criteria: therefore. the Code criteria are not a burden on interstate commerce and have not adversely impacted the 

building construction community. 

Massachusetts considers maintenance 

of the current criteria in its Code as a significant State and'local interest 

because of the confusion that would be 

created if the Commonwealth had to 

eliminate the criteria. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Massachusetts' 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(bj(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on this analysis. DOE has determined 

that Massachusetts has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that Article 17. 

section 2.14.S(a) and Article 20. section 

2010.6.1 and 2010.6.3 of the 

Massachusetts State Building Code are more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant State interest: 

21(}-~5 lest method. DOE haa reviewed this lesl 

melhod Hnd finds thaI it diffrrs from the DOE 

cenlr,,1 air condiltuner lest pru~edure. DOE i. 

trealing Ihese test method ... s an inl"8rol part of 

Massachuselt's room air conciitioner and central air 

conditioner standards fOf which eAemptwo from 

preemption is being sought. 

"MlIssachuaetfs furnace otanJ"rds rer~rence the ANSI Standard Z21.t3-74 te.t method. tho ANSI 

St&ndUld Z21.47-71 test method. Ihe A!':SI Standard 

Z\I1.1-7Z teo' method. and th~ HI Standard 6,1\, test 

method. DOE hloS reviewed ti.ese !PSI methods and 

finds thntthey differ from the DOE furnace test 

procedure. The Department is treating th~.e le.t 

methods as an inlrlgral part of Mnssachllsett'. 

furnace standards for which exemption from 

preemption is being sought. 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

Article 17. section 2.14.8(a) and Article 

20. sections Z010.6.1 and 2010.6.3 of the 

Massachusetts Building Code as they 

pertain to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

CAllFORNlA (CA018). The petition 

submitted by Calitornla seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption all 

of the State's appliance efficiency 

regulations regarding refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces. &0 

California seeks exemptions from 

Federal preemption for three different 

State regulations. First. California seeks 

exemption for Sections 1604 and 1605 of 

Title 20 of the California Administrative 

Code prohibiting the sale of low 

efficiency appliances by establishing 

minimum efficiency levels (referred to 

herein as "the appliance efficiency sale 

regulations"). Second. California seeks 

exemption for Sections Z-53os' (a) and 

Ic). 2-5307(a). and 2-5337 of Part 2 of 

Title 24 of the California Administrative' 

Code prohibiting the installation of low 

efficiency appliances in new buildings 

(referred to herein as "the building 

regulations"). Third. California seeks 

exemption for Sections 25960 and 25964 

of the California l?ublic Resources Code 

prohibiting the sale of gas appliances 

with pilot lights (referred to herein as 

the "11D regulations"). 

1. State Standard Levels 

Refrigerators and RefrifZerotorfreeze!'S. and Freezers. i. Section 1604!a! 

provides that the annual energy 

consumption of all new refrigerators. 

refrigerator-freezers and freezers offered 

for sale in the State of California shall 

not exceed the values derived from the 

following formulas. where V is the total 

refrigerated volume in cubic feet and EC 

is the annual energy consumption in 

kilowatt-hours per year: $1 

.. Although thl! title of California's petition 

aliudes to e"emp!ion for "gas space heater" 

regulatiolls. tbe r.<,ulations outhnea in the petition 

have sppr.ific provislUn. r"r ga.· and oi!·fired 

fmnaceo, Thus, lodA)'" propc.lij pertains to those 

prav;"'"n. of th .. California regulatinn. regarding 

ga,- and oil·fired h .. meets. 

~': C&Jifomiu·. refrtpprator. refrip:erator~rree7:er . 

and freezer standards reference the 00£ tesl 

pl'Ocedures for rt!frigerators and rcfriger;"orfreezers and for freezers. aa appropriale, 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32956 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

-

(A) Refrigerators-Be: -1,87 -+ 30..lZV 

IB) Refrigerator-freezers with aulomilfic 

defrost systems and anti-sweat heater $1 

5wilches-EC=487=55V 

(C) Refrigerator-freezers with automatic 

defrosl systems and without anti-sweat 

heater switches-EC=-l,87 -i-60.8JV 

(D) Refrigerator-freezers without automatic 

defrost systems-EC=487+48.(\7V 

(E) Upright freezers with automatic defrosl 

systems and anti-sweat heater switchesEC=460+65V 

IF) Upright freezers ""ilh automatic defrost 

systems and Without anti-sweat heater ' 

swilches-EC=460+6e.94V 

(G) Upright freezers without aul(lmlltic 

defrost systems-EC = 460 + 45.96V 

(H) Non-upright freezers-EC=379+37.85V 

Water Hcat'Jrs. i. Section 1604 (e) 

provides tha t: 59 

(Al All new electric storage water , 

heoters offered for sale in the State of 

California shall have a standby loss not 

exceeding 4 watts per square foot of 

tank surface area or 35 walts whichever 

is greater: except for mobile home types. 

where 4 watts per square foot of tank 

surface area is the only requirement. 

(B) All new gas storage water heaters 

offered for sale in the State of California 

excepting those designed expressly for 

use ill mobile homes. must satisfv one of 

two alternative requirements. They must 

either have a standby loss not exceeding 

the quantity of 2_3+67 iV. expressed in 

percent per hour of the stored thermal 

energ:J, where V equals the volume of 

the ..... ater heater in gallons. and a recovery efficiency nol less than 76 

percent: or. a standby 105$ not exceeding 

the quantity of 1-3 + 67/V. expressed in 

percent per hour of the stored thermal 

energy. where V equals the volume of 

the water heater. in gallons. and a recovery efficiency not less than 74 

percent. 

(C) All new gas storage water heaters 

offered for sale in the Stale or California 

expressly designed for use in mobile 

homes shall have a recovery efficiency 

not less than 75 percent; and. a standby 

loss no greater than 7.5 percent for units 

with storage capacities Jess than 25 

gallons. no greater than 7.0 percent for 

units with storage capacities of at least 

25 gallons but less than 35 g;;!Jons, or no 

greater than 6.0 percent for units with 

storage capacities of 35 gallvns or more. it Section 2-5307(a] adopts by 

reference the energy efficier:cy 

requirements for water heaters fuund at 

section 1604l,,) of Tille 20 of the 

"An anli·sweat healer i. a device that prevenls the accumulatlOr. of mOisture on the eX'eMur 

surfaces of a re!rigeratcl, refMgNator-frcezer, or fre •• er 'lnder c!'>ndit:nr.s of high amCler.l humiJily. 

The anti#SW8at !leak!" u!u~Hj' cont.dl!~ eh,'Clric 

resislence heating clemen,,-, 

"California's waler heater slandd,d~ referenr.e 

the DOE waler heatel test pl'",)ccdure. 

- California Administrative Code for units 

installed in new buildings. Section 2-

5307(a) further requires that oil-fired 

storage water heaters installed in new buildings shall have a recovery 

efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3 + 67 IV. expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy, where 

V equals the volume Dr the water heater 

in gall ons. 80 ' 

Room Air Conditioners. 1. Section 

1604(b) provides that: 6) (A) All new' 

room air conditioners with heating 

capability offered for sale in the State of 

California shall have a thermal 

efficiency not less than 90 percent. 

(BJ All new room air conditioners 

deSigned for operation with an electrical 

supply of less than 200 volts offered for 

sale in the State of California shall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 

6_2 Btu per watt-hour. 

(C) All new room air conditioners 

designed for operation with an electrical 

supply ofless than 200 volts offered for 

sale in the Slate of California shall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 

6.7 Btu per watt-hour. 

[DJ All new room air conditioners 

designed,for operation with an electrical 

supply of at least 200 volts and which 

are capabJe of performing a heating 

function offered for sale in the Slate of 

California shall have an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 8.3 Btu per 

watt-hour. 

ii. Section 2-5306(a) adopts by 

reference the energy efficiency 

requirements for room air conditioners 

found at section 1604(b) of Title 20 of the 

California Code for u."'llts installed in new buildings. 

Central Air CondUioners. i. Se(;tion 

1604(cJ provides that all new central air 

conditioners offered for sale in the Stale 

of California shall have a sed!l;)nal 

energy efficiency ratio not less than 8_0 

6tu per watt-hour.62 

ii. Section 2-5306(a) adopts by 

reference the energy efficiency 

requirements for central air conditioners 

found at section 1604(c) of Tille 20 of the 

California Code for units installed in 

new buildings. 

"California's oil-fired waler beate' standard 

references the ANSI Standard ZZl,lO,3-1981 test 

method, DOE has reviewed this lest method and 

finds that it dm"rs from the DOE water hca:er lest 

procedure, The Department is Ireuling this If>SI 

method as an integtal part of Cilifomia's oil-fired 

water healer standard for which exemplion from 

preemption is being sought, 

., California's room air conditioner standards 

reference the DOE room air conditioner le.1 

procedure, 

"California's central air conditione! standard. 

reference thE DOE centra; air conditioner lesl 

procedure. 

, Furnaces. i. Section 1604(d) provides 

that: 83 

(AJ All new gas fan-type central 

furnaces with input ratings less than 

175.000 Btu per hour ofre ed for sale in 

the State of California sh,lll have a 

seasonal efficiency not less than 71 

percent. 

(B) All new gas fan-type central 

furnaces with input ratings of 175.000 

Btu per hour or greater offered for sale 

in the State of California must satisfy 

one of two alternative requirements. 

Furnaces falling in this category must 

either have a seasonal efficiency not 

less than 71 percent: or. a steady stale 

efficiency not less than 75 percent and a . standby loss not exceeding 147 watts in 

the case of units designed expressly for 

use with Iiquified petroleum gases 

including propane. and 25 watts in all 

other cases. Effective December 22, 

1984. this latter alternative requirement 

will no longer be applicable_ At that 

time. all furnaces falling in this category 

will be required to have a seasonal 

efficiency not less than 71 percent. 

(e) All new gas boilers shall have a thermal efficiency not less than 75 

percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding 293 watts in the case of units 

designed expressly for use with liquified 

petroleum gases induding propane. and 

147 watts in all other cases_ 

ii. Section 1605 provides that no new 

fan-type central furnaces. other than 

those designed to bum only liquified 

petroleum gases and those designed 

expressly for use in mobile homes and 

recreational vehicles. be sold equipped 

with a continuously burning pilot. 

iii. Section 2-5306(c) adopts by 

reference the energy efficiency 

requirements for furnaces found al 

Sections 1604[d) and 1605 of Tille 20 of 

the California Administrative Code for 

units installed in new buildings_ 

iv. Section 2-5337 provides that in 

addition to the requirements of Section 

2-5306(c), gas furnaces installed in new buildings shall have a thermal efficiency 

not less than 75 percent. ... Section 2-

5337 also stipulates that oil furnaces 

shall have a combustion efficiency not 

less than 75 percent at maximum rated 

output. 65 

.. Califomla 's furn"c~ standards rerer~nc~ lh. 

DOE furnace test prm:.eollre. 

"Califomia's gao furnace stand,ud rC:er""c.s th~ 

ANSI Standard Z2M;-1~,tl test methur.! DOl:. h, •• 

re"lewed this tesl method and finds th"l it djrr~rs 

from the DOE furnace I"" procedur~. The 

DftfHlrtmenr is treating thiS te.,1 method as an 

integral paM of Ca1ifomia·s Ji!iiS furnar.e s!<.1n\.!..Ji'c i.H 

whIch exemption i':om preempli')n i. !>c;". ";u~hl 

s:'CaHfomia's oil fu!'nace a'c.nria!'o H,dude~. ~ !t"st 

method which differs from the OOE fum"~p lesl m~lhod, The Oepartmellt '" treatJl1~ Ih.s lesl method 

C.:lut;nlJt"tt 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 , Proposed Rules 32959 

v. Section 25960 (lID regulation) 

stipulateS' that no new residential-type 

gas appliances that are being equipped 

with pilot lights. excluding gas water 

heaters. shall be sold in the State after 

an alternate means of ignition has been 

certified by the Commission. It 

stipulates further that this prohibition 

shall become operative 24 months after an intermittent ignition device has been 

certified by the Commission as an alternate means. 

vi. Section 25964 (lID regulations} 

stipulates that 24 months after an intermittent ignition device has been 

certified by the Commission. no person 

shall sell or offer for sale any new gas 

appliances. excluding gas water healers. 

in California without obtaining the 

proper seal of certification from the 

Commission unless the Commission 

otherwise permits such action. Section 

25964 further provides that beginning at 

this time. no city or county. or Slate 

agency shall issue a permit for any 

building to be equipped with any new gas appliance (as specified above) 

unless such building permit shows that 

the gas appliance complies with this 

chapter. 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petition includes extensive 

analysis regarding the savings 

attributable to these regulations. This 

analysis concludes that these 

regulations save individual appliance 

users up to $200 per year. and that 800 

million therms of natual gas and 4 

billion kilowatt-hours of electricity will 

be saved annually by the end of the 

century. The petitioner contends that 

these energy savings demonstrate a 

significant State interest 

3. Additional Information 

California asserts that: (ll 

Conservation is the best energy supply 

for Californians; (2) the regulations 

lower utility rates for all California: (3) 

the regulations increase employment 

and improve the climate for business in 

California: (4) the regulations are 

particularly beneficial for low-income consumers: (5) the regulations produce 

environmental benefits for California: 

and (6) if the California regulations are preempted. the free markel will not 

produce the same benefits. and therefore 

should not be relied upon. 

California also states that these 

energy regulations do not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Specifically. the petitioner contends that 

these regulati9ns are a reasonable 

as an Inte!!ral part of California's oil furnace 

standard for which exemption from preemptinn i. 

bem8 sought. 

means to carry out the legitimate 

purpose of energy conservation and do 

not have a discriminatory motive or effect. Further. the petition states that 

these energy regulations do not 

adversely affect appliance 

manufacturers. do not conflict with 

requirements in other States. do not 

have an adverse extraterritorial effect. 

do not meaningfully restrict appliance 

choice in California. do not burden the 

instrumentalities of interstate commerce and do not conflict with any need for 

nalionaJ uniformity. California believes 

its energy regulations have benefits 

which substantially outweigh any 

burden they might have on interstate 

commerce and that in the State's view. no acceptable alternatives exist. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed California 's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that California has provided prima facie 

evidence showing that sections 1604 and 

1605 of Title 20 of the California 

Administrative Code. and sections 2-

5306 (a) and (c). 2-5307(a). and 2-5337 of 

Part 2 of Title 24 of the California 

Administrative Code and sections 25960 

and 25964 of the California Public 

Resources Code are more stringent than 

DOE's rule for refrigerators and 

refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water 

hea lers. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a Significant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

sections 1604 and 1605 of Title 20 of the 

California Administrative Code. 

sections 2-5306 (a) and (c). 2-5307(a) 

and 2-5337 of Part 2 of Title 24 of the 

California Administrative Code and 

sections 25960 and 25964 of the 

California Public Resources Code from 

the preemptIve provisions of section 

327(a){2) of the Act. 

OREGON (OR019). The petition 

submitted by Oregon seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

following ihree regulations: (1) Oregon 

Laws 1979. Chapter 197 (June 4. 1979); (2) 

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). 

section 814-21-135; and (3) State of 

Oregon. 1983 Edition. Structural 

Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety 

Regulations. Sections 5304(b) 2 and 5. 

Oregon's 1983 Edition. Structural 

Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety 

Regulation. Chapter 53. Energy 

Conservation adopts the 1982 edition of 

the Uniform Building Code pubiished by 

ICBO. The Oregon laws pertain to water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners. and furnaces. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. OAR Section 814-21-

135 specifies minimum energy efficiency 

criteria applicable to the installation of 

water heaters in buildings. It provides 

that·electric storage water heaters shall 

have a standby loss n01 exceeding 4 

watts per square foot of tank surface area or 43 watts. whichever is greater, 

and a thermal insulation value of R-16 if 

the water heater is installed in an unconditioned space. The requisite 

thermal insulation requirement may be 

satisfied by means of a retrofit 

insulation jacket. Gas- and oil-fired 

storage water heaters with input rates of 

75.000 Btu per hour or less shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 

percent and a standby loss not . exceeding the quantity of 2.3+67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. Oil-fired water heaters with 

input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu/per 

hour are required to have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 80 percent. 

Additionally. oil-fired water heaters 

with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu 

per hour but less than 4.000 Btu per hour 

per gallon of self-stored water are required to have a standby loss 

percentage not exceeding the quantity 

2.8+67/V. expressed in percent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the rated volume in gallons. 66 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. Oregon's 1983 Edition. 

Structural Specialty Code and Fire and 

Life Safety Regulation. section 5304(b)2 

specifies a minimum energy efficiency 

ratio of 6.8 Btu per watt-hour for room and central air conditioners. tI1 

Furnaces. Oregon's 1983 Edition. 

Structural Specialty Code and Fire and 

Life Safety Regulation. section 5304(b)5 

specifies a minimum combustion 

efficiency of 75 percent for furnaces." 

"The water healer standards of the State of 

Oregon reference the DOE water heater test 

procedures. 

IT Oregon's r,oom air conditioner standard 

reference. the ANSI Standard Z23~.1-72 test 

method which DOE adopted as its test procedure 

for room air conditioners. Oregon's central air 

conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 

210-75 test method. DOE has reviewed this test 

method and finds that it differs from the DOE 

central air conditioner test procedure. The 

Department is trealms these test methods as an 

integral part of Oregon's room air condilioner and 

central air conditioner .tandaTds for which 

exemphon.from preemption is being sought. 

.. Oregon's furnace standards reference the ANSI 

Standard ZZl.13-74 test method. the ANSI Standard 

ZZl.47-:'1 test method. the ANSI Standard Z91.l-n test method. and the HI Standard 6.6 test method. 

Continued 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32960 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday, August 17, 1984 I Proposed Rules 

Oregon Law. Chapter 197IJune 4, 1979) 

prohibits the sale of forced-air space 

heating equipment unless such . 

equipment is equipped with an 

intermittent ignition device." 

2. Significant State Interest 

Oregon's petition asserts that 

conservation is the cheapest. most 

secure and enVironmentally benign 

source of energy for Oregon and that 

energy costs are a substantial drain on 

the State's economy: that energy 

conservation has a direct effect on the 

health of the Slate's (and the Nation'S) 

economy and thaI conservation makes 

money available for alternale purchases 

and investments in industrial 

productivity, Oregon further asserts 

that: space and water heating account 

for 63.1 percent of lolal electrical energy 

use within the State. significant energy 

savings can be achieved by installing 

energy efficient equipment. Oregon's 

standards guarantee t..l:tat only energy . 

efficient appliances are sold in the State. 

and that since many appliances are 

purchased by homebuilders. landlords 

and contractors rather than actual users 

(where energy efficiency is not a major. 

factor in the purchase decision for mQst 

appliances) inefficient, lower-priced 

appliances would likely be used in the 

Slate of Oregon if its laws and 

regulations are superseded. 

3. Additionallnforniation 

Moreover. Oregon points out that its 

appliance standards benefit the State by 

allOWing for more accurate electricity 

demand forecasting by the Oregon 

Department of Energy. Another 

argument put forth is that intermittent 

ignition devices contribute to improving 

indoor air quality in homes by reducing 

the combustion products emitted by 

pilot lights. Finally, Oregon notes that 

the appliance regulations have been in 

place since 19i8 without any complaints 

from appliance manufacturers. thai most 

manufacturers do have products 

available to meet the State's 

requirements and that any adjustments 

have already occurred. Thus. retaining 

the law should have no additional 

impacts. 

DOE has reviewed these lest methods and find. 

that they differ from the DOE furnace test 

procedure, The Department i. Ir~aling these le.t 

methods 88 an integ:;,1 part of O'''8on·. furnace 

standards for which e".mption from pl·eemplion i. 

being $Ought. 

.. It does nol ap;>ly to 888 appliances ua..d in 

recreational .ehicles, portable gas apphliDces used 

for outdoor recreational purpose •• or gas appliances 

used in a structure thai i. not served by electrical 

power, 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Oregon's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b )(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Oregon has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

that Oregon Laws 1979. Chapter.197 

(June 4. 1979); Oregon Administrative 

Rules Section 814-21-135: and State of 

Oregon, 1983 Edition Structural 

Specialty Code and Fire and Ufe Safety 

Regulations. section 5304(b)2 and 5 are more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

Oregon Laws 1979. Chapter 197 (June 4. 

1979); Oregon Administrative Rules, 

section 814-21-135; and State of Oregon. 

1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code 

and Fire and Life Safety Regulations. 

section 5304(b) 2 and 5 from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2) of the Act. 

NEW YORK (NY020). The petition 

submitted by New York seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

section 16-108, 16-110. 16-116. and 16-

118 of the New York Slate Energy Law 

(NYSEL) and sections 7813.23 and 

7813.33 of Title 9 of the Official 

Compilation of New York Codes, Rules. 

and Regulations (NYCRR). The New 

York laws pertain to refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, freezers. water 

heaters, room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces. 

1. Slate Standard Levels 

Refrigerators. Refrigerator-freezers 

and Freezers. For refrigerators. 

refrigerator-freezers. and freezers. 

sectiOn 16-110 of the NYSEL prohibits 

the advertisement or sale of any 

refrigera tor. refrigera tor-freezer. or freezer that is not equipped.with an easily accessible. manually-operated 

switch to control the anti-sweat heater. 

Water Heaters. For water heaters. 

section 16-108 of the NYSEL Drohibits 

the advertisement or sale of any electric 

storage water heater with a standby 108s 

exceeding 4 watt-hours per hour per 

square foot of tank surface area and any 

'gas· or oil-fired storage water heater 

with a recovery efficiency less than 75 

percent and a standby loss exceeding 

the quantity of 2.3 + 6i IV. expressed in 

percent per hour of the stored thermal 

energy, where V is the rated volume of 

the wale heater in gallons.1O Section 

.. New York's water heater standards reference . 

the ANSI Standard C7Z.1-7Z lesl method and the 

7813.33 of n tie 9 of the NY CRR 

stipulates energy efficiency slandard~ 

for water heaters used in new 

construction and substantial renovation 

projects. These standards are iutmtical 

to those found at Section 16-108 of the 

NYSEL with one exception: Section 

7813.33 stipulates that oil-fired waler 

heaters shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than eo percent. 

Room Air Conditioners. Section 16-

118 of the NYSEL prohibits the sale of 

any room air conditioner with an energy 

efficiency ratio less than: 7.5 Btu per 

walt-hour for units with cooling 

capacities less than 6.000 Btu per hour 

and nominal operating voltages less 

than 150 voks: 8.5 Btu per watt-hour for 

units with cooling capacities grealer 

than or equal to 6.000 Btu per hour and 

nominal operating voltages less than 150 

volts: and 8.2 Btu per watt-hour for all 

units with nominal operating vo!tnges 

greater than or equal to 150 volts." 

Central Air Conditioners. Section 16-

118 of the NYSEL also prohibits the sale or installation of any central air 

conditioner with a seasonal energy 

efficiency ratio less than 8.0 Btu per 

watt-hour for units manufactu~ed after 

September 1. 1982. and less than 9,5 BlU 

per watt-hour for units manufdctured 

after September 1, 1984. n DOE is 

addressing in this rulemaking both the 

current requirement for central air 

conditioners and the requiremEnt that 

will be applicable to units manufactured 

after September 1, 1984. 

Furnoces. For furnaces. Section 16-116 

of NYSEL prohibits the sale or installation of any gas-fired furnaGe, 

excluding propane furnaces. thai is nol 

equipped with an intermittent ignition 

device. Section 7813.23 of title 9 of the 

NYCRR stipulates that all gas- and oil· 

fired furnaces used in new construction 

and substantial renovation prujects 

shall have a combustion efficiency nOI 

less than 75 percent at maximum rated 

output. 13 

ANSI Standard Z21,lO,3-74 tesl method. OOr: ha. 

reviewed these lest methods and finds that Ihey 

differ from the DOE water he&ter lest procedure, 

The Department is treating tb.se lest methods •• an 

int~gral part of New York', waler heater standard. 

for which exemption from preemption is beins 

sought. 

.. New Vork', room air conditioner standurd 

references tbe DOE room air condilioner lesl 

procedure. 

12 New York', central air conditioner stand"~rl 

references the DOE centl1ll air conditioner lest 

proce<!ure. 

"New York's furnace standards reference th. 

A."'iSl Standard Z:l1.13-74 test method. th. A:-:SI 

Standard Z21.4; -71 test method, the A:-:SI Slar.dard 

91,1-72 tesl method and the HI Standard b,6 lesl 

melhod. DOE hab reVIewed these te.t m":h,,d. dmj 

finds thai they differ from the DOE furnace lest 

procedur~. The Department i. treating these tesl 

ConllOU,.rl 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32961 

2. Significant Slate Interest 

RI..~rri'1Jerators. Refrigerator-freezers. 

alld Freezers-New York contends that 

the Slate standard has a minimal 

economic impact on manufacturers. 

T ere is an industry-wide trend to . 

indude more products with anti-sweat 

heater switches. The petitioner claims 

that the State standard reinforces the 

industry trend: places no new design 

demands on manufacturers: and 

expands the market for energy efficient 

pruJucts. Periodic field surveys 

conJucted by the New York State 

Energy Office show that virtually all 

r"frigeralors and refrigerator-freezers 

offerud for sale have anti-sweat heater 

swttches. The petitioner further claims 

thi't the State standard resulted in 

virtually no lessening of competition 

because of the widespread use of antisweat heater switches throughout the 

CtJuntry. Moreover. the petitioner 

contends that the State standard results 

in ;:0 undue burden on interstate 

cummerce because the State found 

widespread compliance during the field 

survevs and because of the absence of 

sigl'lificanl competitive problems for 

. m.mufacturers. distributors. and retailers. 

The petitioner claims that the . 

standard results in favorable economics 

for consumers. The anti-sweat heater 

switch is reported to cost $5. The 

resulting life cycle costs are estimated to 

r"nse from $25.78 to $112.96 for various consumers in New York, with a simple 

payback period estimated to range from 

10 months to 4.3 years. . 

The petitioner states that there are 

8.700.000 refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. and freezers in New York. In 

1982. 86.8 perc;ent of all refrigerators. 

ref~igerator-freezers. and freezers sold 

nationwide had anti-sweat heater 

switches. New York estimates that its 

State standard affected about 13.2 . 

percent or 1.150.000 appliances. The 

annual energy savings realized by the 

appliances are estimated to be between 

554 to 833 million kilowatt-hours per 

year-or a savings in utility bills for the 

State of about $3.2 million to $4.9 million 

annually. Thus. New York claims that its 

State standard results in substantial 

savings at a State level as well as being 

economically beneficial for consumers. Water Heaters-The petitioner claims 

thnt the State water heater standard has 

little economic impac! on manufacturers. 

During 1982. 107.000 gas-fired and 70.600 

electric storage water heaters were sold 

in New York. New York claims that few 

manufacturers are affected by the State 

standard. For example. a review of the 

methods a. an integral part of New York's furnace 

"Gndards for which exemption from preemption is 

b"mg 8ought. 

July 1983 issue of the Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association's Directory 

of Certified Water Heaters Efficiellcy 

Ratings reveals that all manufacturers of 

gas-fired storage water heaters 

represented in the Directory have 

models that comply with the State 

standard (about 45 percent of the gasfired storage water heaters listed in the 

Directory comply with the State 

standard). Also. all but one 

manufacturer of electric storage water 

heaters listed in the Directory had 

models that comply with the State 

standard (about 56.4 percent of the 

Directory's models of electric storage 

water heaters comply with the State 

standard). H For the single electric 

storage water heater manufacturer who 

did not comply with the State standard. 

the manufacturer has only 0.8 percent of 

the models listed in the Directory and 

has never contacted the New York State 

Energy Office. implying that New York 

is not a market for that manufacturer. 

The Directory lists only 14 models of oilfired water heaters-noe of these 

models comply with the State standard. 

The petition states that the major 

manufacturer of oil-fired water heaters 

in the northeastern states is not listed in 

the Directory. The petition also states 

that 60 percent of the manufacturer's 

water heaters comply with the State 

standard. Therefore. New York contends 

that the State water heater standard has 

little economic impact on manufacturers. 

New York also claims that for gas-flred 

and electric storage water heaters. a 

broad selection of models is available 

and that the State standard does not 

appear to signifrcantiy reduce the level 

of competition for gas-fired or electric 

storage water heaters. The petitioner 

stales that there is a shift away from oilfired water heaters because of their 

significantly higher flrst cost. 

The petitioner states that there are 

2.635.000 gas-fired storage water 

heaters. 2.694.000 oil-fired water heaters. 

and 724.000 electric storage water 

heaters in New York. Detailed energy 

savings are estimated for water heaters 

complring with Section 16-108 of the 

NYSEL. The savings estimated are 

attributable to all replacement water 

heaters meeting the State standard 

compared to meeting the national salesweighted energy efficiency. 

1< For gas-fired storage waler heaters. 87.8 percent 

comply with Section 16-108 of the NYSEL and 45.4 

percent comply with Section 7813.33 of Tille 9 of 

NYCRR. For electric storage waler hesten. 56.4 

percent comply with bolh Sections 16-108 of the 

NYSEL and Section 7813.33 of title 9 of NYCRR. 

Therefore. the petitioner concludes. the effect of the 

State standard on lessening of competllion is of 

minor importance. 

For consumers. water heaters would 

increase in price $30 to $40. The 

resulting savings in life cycle costs are 

estimated to be between $60.57 to 

$154.18 for gas-fired storage water 

heaters. $522.94 to $1.344.82 for electric 

storage water heaters and $192.30 to 

$260.84 for oil-fired water hearters. 's The 

simple payback period is estimated to 

be between 2.1 to 6.5 years for gas-fired 

storage water heaters. 3.5 months to 1.4 

years for electric storage water heaters, 

and 1.3 to 3.1 years for oil-fired water 

heaters. In no case does the single 

payback period exceed one-half of the 

expected life of the water heater. 

New York presents additional 

estimates for gas-fired storage water 

heaters that comply \\oilh Section 7813.33 

of NYCRR as well as with Section 16.108 

of the NYSEL. Water heaters would 

save an additional 19.7 therms annually 

for a total savings of 35 therms for gasfired storage water heaters that meet 

both standards. The savings in life cycle 

costs are estimated to range from 

$217.05 to $381.33. The simple payback 

period is estimated to range from 1.2 to 

2.8 years. In no case does the simple 

payback period exceed one-quarter of 

the expected life of the water heater. 

At a State level. the annual savings 

are estimated to be 40.300,000 therms of 

natural gas. 50.100,000 gallons of oil. and 

4i1.ooo.ooo kilowatt-hours of electricity. 

New York estimates that the savings are 

equivalent to 8.000 barrels of oil per day. 

Thus. New York contends that its State 

standard for water heaters results in 

substantial savings at a State level. as 

well as being economically feasible for 

consumers. 

Room and Central Air ConditionersNew York contends that minimum 

energy efficiency standards are needed 

for room and central air conditioners. 

The petitioner argues that without any 

standards. consumers would purchase 

room air conditioners on impulse. Also. 

central air conditioners are usually 

selected by a builder or a heating. 

ventilating. and air conditioning 

contractor. Under both of these market 

mechanisms. first cost is of primary 

importance-energy efficiency and life 

cycle cost are not valued as highly as first cost. New York argues that the free 

market alone is inadequate in promoting 

the sale of energy efficient room and 

central air conditioners. For room air 

conditioners. the shipment-weighted 

energy factor rose for an energy 

efficiency ratio of 6.22 Btu per watt-hour 

"The annual S8\'ings are 15.3 thenn. for gas-fired 

storage waler heaters. 650 kilowatt·hour for electric 

storage water heater:s. and 18.6 gallona for oil· fired 

water healers. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32962 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. t61 I Friday, August 17. 1984 f Proposed Rules 

in 19'72 to an energy efficiency ra1ia of 

6.n Btu per waft-frour in 1960, a change 

of onJy &.a pen:ent during a period when 

electricaf prices increased drastiCl!'ffy. 

According to New York. even fen 

progress was made with respm fc the 

energy efficiency of central air 

conditioners. From 1972 umi! 1960. thenationa' shtpmenfoweighted ave:rege 

energy factor for central air conditioners 

rose from a seastlnaI energy efficiency 

ratio of 6.66 to II seasonal energy 

efficIency ratio of 7.06 Btu per watt~hour. 

a gain of only 6.0 percent. Also. 1M 

sales_eighted energy efficiency of 

central air conditioJlers sold in New 

York declined by sbont l~ pe~nt O1Ier 

a two-year period just before New York 

promulgated its stantiard. Such IJ decline 

in efficiency in a market with Aigh 

electricity costa. at it time wneJI 

electricity costs were rishlg still bigher. 

was irratronal. Thus. New York ciaims 

that standards are neerled for room and 

central air conditWners in order to 

ensure that energy efficient models are 

being purchased and used by 

consumers. 

New York claims that tire State 

standard has placed no undue burden 

on manufacturers. All manufacturers of 

room air conditio!len listed in the 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers' WlAM) Direcwry of 

Certified Room Air CJm;lWoners 

produce models that comply with the 

State standard. Also, 88.5 percent of the 

manufactw:ers of central air 

conditioners listed in the Ail'-

Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute's {ARI) Direwry of Certified 

Unitary Air Conditioners prodoce 

models that comply with the State's 

current standard. 

New York states that it is very 

sensitive to potentiaf adverse impacts 

on competition resulting from overly 

restrictive standards. In fact. its 

previous standard was so stringent that 

few room air conditioners (those with a 

cooling capacity of less than 6,000 Btu 

per hour and an operating voltage of1ess 

than 150 volts) would have been 

available. To prevent such a restriction 

on consumer choice and the 

unreasonahfe burden on manufacturerll., 

New York revised its standard to its 

current level. New York also claims that 

the current standard imposes no Imdue 

burden on interstate commerce because 

the industry has not complained 

otherwise to New York. 

New York cOnlends that its presen' 

room air conditioner and central air 

conditioner standards are beneficial to 

consUmers. The first cost wonki ;noease 

by $82.98 for room atr conditioners and 

by $186.59 for central air condittonenr. 

The annual energy savings due to 

existing mmdard's are estimated [0 be 

about 181 kilowatt-hours for room air 

cand'rtionmr am:f about 48:.1 kifGWlrtthours for central air conditioners. The 

savings in life cycfe costs for room air 

conditioners: ranges from $61.15 t'O' 

$356.:75 and ~ simpl~ payfJcNk period 

ranges from %.8 yearS' to'm.l years. 

Similarly. for Cll'l'Itraf air eondifi01re1'S. 

the savings Oft life cycle c:o:m ranged 

from $29.99 faS75&.42 and the simple 

payback period nmges from 2.4 to 11.1 

years. In aU cases. the Stare standa1'd 

results in simple payback periods tha1 

are withill the expected life of the 

product. 

Accordinog to tlle petitioner. there are 

Z,300.00(} 100m air conen tioners and 

415.000 centnd air condittone1'8 in New 

York. At b Stafe fevel. the presenf 

room air conditioner and central air 

conditioner standard'S W'auld save about 

616.000.000 kilowatt-hours of efectricity 

arumallly. 1'his ie equivalent to 3.400 

barrels of au per day. 

New York contends th'a'f its September 

1. 1984 standard for central air 

conditioners i&.benefieial: W cOfisumers. 

The first cost would int:rease between 

$308.3'f and $527.30 for central aiT 

conditioners. The annual energy savings 

due to 1984 central air CClnditioner 

standards are estimated to be 1052 

Idlowatt-hOllD's. The savings in life cycle 

costs for central alr conditioners at the 

1984 sta:Rda7d levelr.anges from 68.71 to 

$.'l.745.5& and the simple payback period 

ranges from 1.3 years to 11.1 years. In all 

cases. the 1984 central air conditioner 

standard results in simp~ payback 

periods cnat ar~ wi1htn the expected life 

of the prodact. 

Accond'ing to the: petitioner. with 

415.000 central air c:ondHioners in New 

York. the 1984 central air conditioner 

standard would save about 437,000.000 

kilowatt-hours of elecn-ici1:y annually. 

This is equivalent to 2.470 barrels of oil 

per day. • 

FUmDce9-The petitioner states that 

shortages of natural gas in th1l tate 

19.70·~ COtIPii!cl wHb It desire to coose-rve 

gas led kI th~ cuuent standard 

prohibiting Mn<img ptiot lights on gas 

fumaee& (~ion 16-11& NYSEL)" New 

York corrt-ends \l\et the SAate standard 

bas !»aced flf) tlJldue bu.rden on 

manufacturers.. The Janua.vy 1983 edition 

of the American Gas Association's 

Directory of Certifiad Appliances and 

Acl;es$ories showlf that' sa2 percent of 

the manufacturers l'tstl!d for "LowPressure BoHers-For Alcove or Closet 

lnstalIatu:me. Part 1:' whicG manufacture 

IROdels that £alt within the scope of the 

Federal "no standard" sta:ndard. 

produce models with lIDs. Fully 100 

percent of the manufacturers listed for 

"Central' Furnaces-For Alcove or 

CWile1 Im1allafions. Part 1.- which . 

manufacture modefs that fa~1 within the 

scope at tFre federal Mno standard" 

standi!rd. produre modebr wft'h lIDs. 

These Ji'8fll im:hrde lin major 

manufaduren and d-emanstrate that 

most manufat:ttrrers remain abf'S [0 

compete in Ne'IIf' Yorlc moreover. there 

ill no evidence fflat those manufacturers 

who produce boilers without llDs ever 

sold goods in New York prior to section 

16-116"8 enactment. 

Section 16-116 has been in effect in 

New York State since 1980, and 

according fo !he peCition. no problems 

with its implementation wifh respect to 

gas boilers and furnaces ha·ve arisen 

since thar time. ExemptionS-from the 

requirements of section 16-116 were 

granted tor gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens that incorporate a separate 

compartment specifically designed to 

provide space heating and for gravity 

type room heaters. wan furnaces. and 

floor furnaces. when manufacturers 

pointed out the lack of availabfe 

replacements incorporating rIDs. Given 

this demonstrated willingness to make 

adiustments to the requirements of 

section 16-116. the lack of any further 

contact from manufacLurers suggests 

that they are not concerned that their 

sales in the State are unduly restricted. 

New York contends that consumers 

benefit from the State standard. A 

November 1983 survey of plumbing and ___ 

heating wholesalers conducted by the 

. NYSEO determined that the difference 

in bOst for an identical furnace with a 

pilot light and with an UD ranged from 

$1:28 to $154. The am:lUa.l energy savings 

are estimated to be 70 therms. For 

consumers in New York. the savings in 

life cycle costs r!mge from $700.24 to 

$1.298.04. based on individual gas rates.. 

The simple payback period ranges from 

1.97 k> 5.49 years. ihe State standard 

results in substantial savings for 

consumers as well as in relatively short 

payback perrods. 

The petition states that substituting 

lID's for pilot lights does not affect the 

primary fu.nctiOR 01 a furnace (space 

heating] or its performance. New York 

has few hornes without electrical 

service-these bornEs are usuallv found 

in rura:~ areZ$ and also generally' do not 

bave natural gas service. Therefore. 

Jequiring etec.fricity for an lID before a 

furnace can be installed is mrt percetved 

to be a problem. 

The standard results in substantial 

savings at the State level. There are 

about 2.395.000 gas furnaces and boilers 

in New York. Assuming that gas pilot 

lights use about 70 !herms of natural gas 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. August 17. 1984 / Proposed Rules 32963 

- annually. State-wide energy use for all 

pilot lights in gas furnaces and boilers is 

3.689.000.000 terms over their 22-year 

lifetime. The savings attributed to the 

Slate standard is somewhat lower 

because. nationwide. only 33 percent of 

all gas furnaces and boilers sold are 

equipped with IID·s. This percentage 

could be as high as 60 percent in , 

markets dominated by retrofits. as is the 

case with New York. Thus. New York 

claims that the State standard results in 

a savings of about 1.467.000.000 to 

2.472.000.000 therms annually. the 

eauivalent of 3.270 to 5,480 barrels of oil d~il~ . 

Section 7813.23. Title 9 of the NYCRR 

specifies a minimum combustion 

efficiency of 75 Percent for all gas- and 

oil-fired furnaces. According to the 

petition. the minimum combustion 

efficiency sldndards represents a 

significant opportunity to conserve 

ellergy for the State. since in 1980 space 

heating energy (primarily in the form of 

natural gas and oil) represented 68.8 

pl.'rcent of all residential energy use and 

residential space heating with gas 

accounted for 38.2 percent of New 

York's end use of gas. 

New York contends that the State 

standard does not appear to have 

created an undue burden on the 

manufacturers of gas- and oil-fired 

furnaces and boilers competing in New 

York since all of the manufacturers of 

gas-fired and oil-fired equipment listed 

in the January 1983 edition of the Gas 

Appliance Manufacturers Association's 

Director}, of Certified Furnace and 

Boiler Efficiency Ratings produce 

models that comply with the State 

standard. Approximately 80 percent of 

the gas-fired furnace models listed 

appear to comply with the standard: an 

even higher percentage of oil-fired 

furnaces and gos- and oil-fired boilers 

comply. . 

The Stale standard has been in effect 

since January 1. 1979. The pelition 

asserts that the construction industry 

appears to be complying readily with 

the standard: and reports of noncompliance or complaints about 

problems obtaining complying 

equipment have not been received by 

NYSEO. Also. no complaints have been 

brought to the attention of the NYSEO 

by manufacturers. retailers, or 

consumers. 

New York contends that conllumers 

benefit from the State standard. The 

cost differenr..e between a furnace which 

complies to the standard to one which 

does not. is estimated to range from $0 

to $73.50. The annual energy savings are 

estimated to he about 150 trwrms. For 

consumers in New York. the savings in 

life cycle costs would range from 

$1.904.29 to $3.055.80. based on 

individual gas rates. The simple 

payback period ranges from zero to 1.25 

years. 

No similar estimates of energy savings 

are provided in the petition for oil-fired 

furnaces because it was not possible to 

estimate from available information the 

total energy savings resulting from oilfired furnaces that comply with the 

standards in new construction and 

substantial renovation. A second reason 

fs that New York is unable to determine 

the energy use of all oil-fired furnaces 

that would be sold in the State if the 

State standard did not exist. 

The State standard results in 

substantial savings at a State level. For 

gas-fired furnaces, the savings are 

estimated to be about 3,703.000 lherms 

annually. No similar savings are" 

estimated for oil-fired furnaces. 

3. Additional Information 

New York claims that the State 

standards for refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. water heaters. room 

air conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces have placed no undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed New York's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3} of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that New York has provided prima facie 

evidence showing that Sections 16-108. 

16-110. 16-116 and 16-118 of the New 

York State Energy Law and sections 

7813.23 and 7613.33 of Title 9 of the 

Official Compilation of New York 

Codes. Rules and Regulations are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

freezers. water heaters: room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces; are justified by a 

significant State interest: and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting sections 16-108.16-

110.16-116 and 16-118 of the New York 

State Energy Law. including the 

provisions which will be applicable to 

central air conditioners manufactured 

after September 1, 1984 found at section 

16-116 of the New York State Energy 

Law. and sections 7813.23 and 7813.33 of 

Tille 9 of the Official Compilation of 

New York Codes. Rules and Regualtions 

from the preemptive provisions of 

section 327(a)(2}(A) of the Act. 

MISSOURI (M0021). The petition 

submitted by Missouri seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal premption the 

building code or~inances of 68 localities 

within the State. as they pertain to 

energy efficiency standards for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioner:· and furnaces. 

Missouri's pe ition included a list 

identifying the localities that have 

energy efficiency requirements 

incorporated into their building codes. 

which model building codes these are 

based on (BOCA. ICBO. UBC. sacco or 

other), if any. and the date that each 

locality adopted its building code.'· The 

petition also included copies of those 

sections of the various model building 

codes referenced which pertain to 

household equipment energy efficiency 

requirements. 

Today's notice proposes to grant 

Missouri's petition for exemption from 

preemption of the building codes of the 

localities for which Missouri has 

petitioned. See § 430.33(e) (14). (0(14). 

(g)(15), and (h)(lS) of today's proposed 

rule for a listing of the localities of 

Missouri with building code energy 

efficiency requirements pertaining to 

water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

respectively. which DOE is proposing to 

exempt from Federal supersession. 

1. State Standard Lavels 

Water Heaters. For those localities in 

Missouri that have adopted building 

codes which are based on the ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. electric storage water 

heaters are required to have a standby 

.. For 9 of the 68 localities identified in Miaaouri·. 

petition. DOE needs additional information beyond 

that supplied in the petition before a final 

determination may be made to exempt their 

buildins code requirements from preemption. The 9 

localities are: Ferguson. Lee's Summit. Malden. 

North Kansll8 City. Pacific. Plattesburg. Raytown. 

SI. Charles. and Wentzville. In the cases of 

Ferguson. North Kansas City. Raytown and St. . 

Charles. the petition indicated that the adoption of a model code was pending. In the cases of Pacific and 

Wentzville. the petition indicated that their current 

building codes were In the process of beins upda ted. 

In the cases of Malden and Plattesburg. the petition 

indicated that both had adopted BOCA model 

codes. but no year of adoption was provided to 

3pacifically identiC) the version of the BOCA model 

code adopted, DOE may only grant exemptions for 

. regulation. which have been formally adopted by 

Stllte. and localities. For the precaedins 8 localities. 

DOE needs information on the specific building 

code regulations that are in effect or have been 

adopted before DOE can make a final determination 

regarding exemption from preemption. In the case 01 

Lee's Summit. the petition indicated that the 

building code adopted was something other than 

one 01 the various model building code •. However. 

no copy of Lee's Summit's building code was 

proVided DOE needs specifiC information regardins 

Lee's Summir. building code regulation beCol-e it 

can make a final d~tprmindtion regarding exemption 

from preemptton. DOE ha. requested from the State 

of Missouri th .. 1 the additional information 

Identift .. d ahoy. be 8upplied for the nine localities 

listed. DOE e"pects to receive the information 

request"c durill!llhe comment period on this 

propused rule. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register f Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

loss which. for building codet! adopted 

prior to January 1. 1977. does not exceed 

4 watts per square toot of tank surface 

area. Gas- and oil-fired storage water 

heaters are required to have a recovery 

efficiency which. for building cadet! 

adopted prior to January 1. 1977. is not 

less than 70 percent and far building . 

codes adopted thereafter. is not less 

than 75 percent. Gas- and oil-fired 

storage water heaters are also required 

to have a standby loss which. for 

building codes adopted prior to January 

1. 1977. does not exceed the quantity ot 

4.3 + 87 [V. expressed in percent per. 

hour of tIre stored thermal energy, where 

V equals the volume of the water heater 

in gallons and; for building codes 

adopted tMreafter. does not exceed the 

quantity of 2.3 + 67 IV. expressed in 

percent per hour of the stored thermal 

energy. where V equals the volume of 

the water heater in gallons. 11 

For those localities in Missouri ,that 

have adopted building codes which are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. electric storage water heaters shall 

have a standby loss not exceeding 4 

watts per square foot of tank surface. or 

43 wafts. which ever is greater. Gas- and 

oil-fired storage waler heaters with 

input ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or 

less shall have a recovery efficiency not 

less than 75 percent and a standby loss 

not exceeding the quantity of 2.3 + 67/ 

V. expressed in percent per hour of the 

storage thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. Oil-fired water heaters with 

input ratings exceeding 75,000 Btu per 

hour are required to have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 80 percent. 

Additionally, oil-fIred water heaters 

with input ratings exceeding 75,000 Btu 

per hour but less than 4.000 Btu per hour 

per gallon of self stored water are 

required to have a standby loss which; 

for building codes adopted prior to 

January 1. 1982 does not exceed lhe 

quantity 2.8 + O.OO2Q/V and, for 

building codes adopted thereafter. does 

not exceed the quantity 2.8 + 67 IV. 

expressed in percent per hotlf of the 

&tored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volun"Hl of the water heater. in 

gallons, and Q equals the rated input of 

the water heater. m Btu per bour. ,. 

1TThe ASHRAl': Standard 90-75 water hemeT 

standards reference the ANSI Standard en-l-72 test Il'Ifrhod and the ANSI Standard ZZ1.l03-74 tesl 

method. DOE has reviewed these test methoda and 

finds thar (hey differ from the DOE watp.r heater teal 

procedure, The Department i. treating these test 

methods as an integral part of the water heater 

standards of those Missouri localities for which 

exemption from preemption is being sought. 

TIThe ASHRAE Standard 00A-l9BO water beater 

standards reference the DOE water heater test 

procedure. 

Room Air C011ditioners and Central 

Air Conditkmertl. Far those localities fn 

MiS80tui that have adopted building 

. codes which are based on the ASH"tAE 

Standard 90-75. room and central a:r 

conditioners are required to have an 

energy efficiency ra tio which. for 

building codes adopted after January 1. 

1977 but before January 1.1980.111 not 

less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour and; (or 

building codes adopted thereafter. 18 110t 

less than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour." 

For those loca.lities in Missouri that 

have adopted building codes which are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980, room and central air conditioners 

are required to have an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 Btu per 

watt-hour.-

Furnaces. For those localities in 

Missouri that have adopted building 

codes which are based on the ASHRAE 

Standard 00-75, furnaces shall have a 

combustion efficiency not less than 75 

percent at maximum rated output. 81 

For those localities in Missouri that 

have adopted building codes which are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. furnaces shall have a steady state 

combustion efficiency not lesll than 74 

percent. except for gravity central 

furnaces which shall have a steady !ltate 

combustiOll efficiency not less than 69 

percent.&2 

2. Significant State Interest 

On behalf of its localities. the State of 

Missouri &tates that the preemption of 

local regulations by a Federal "no 

. standard" &tandard is disruptive to local 

'"The ASHRAE Standard 98-75 room air 

conditioner standard referencu the ANSI Standard 

Z234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted 8S its 

lest procedure for room air conditioneTll. The 

ASHRAE Standard 00-75 central air conditioner 

.Iandard references the ARI Standard 210-75 lest 

method: DOE bas reviewed this test method and 

linda Ihat II differa from tbe 00£ central air 

conditioner b!lat procedure. The Department ill 

treating these real metboda 81 an integral part of the 

100m air conditioner and central air condition .... 

slamlarda of those MislOuri locali ties for w hid. 

exemption from preemption is being sought. 

"The ASHRAE Standard 9OA-l9BO room air 

conditione. standard references tbe ANSI Standard 

Zl34.1-72 teat metlaod which DOE adopted as ita 

tesl procedure for room air condiUoneTll. The 

ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1.91JO central air conditioner 

standard references !he DOE central air conditioner 

tesl pmcedure. 

"The ASHRAE Standard ~75 furnace 

.Iandardo reference the ANSI Standard Z2l.13-74 

1e1It _thod. the ANSI Sta .. dard 2:21.47-71 test 

metbod. the ANSI Standard 91.1-72 test method. 

and the HI Standard e.6 test method. DOE has 

N<riewed thew test methods and find. that they 

differ from tbe DOE l'umace teat procedure. The 

Department is. treating these test methods as an 

integral part of the fW1lace standards of those 

Miasolt'ri rocaffties tor whicll exemption from 

preemptioo Is being IIOII8ltt. 

-The ASHRAE Staadard 9OA-t9ElO EKmace 

84an<lard. refvence 1M DOE furnace _ 

procedure. 

commerca and the local power to 

govern. Further. MiS80un~S localities are 

of the opinion that minimum a-ppliaru:e 

efficiency standards are in the best 

economic intere&t of their citizens. that 

they are in the best position to make 

8uch a determination and that minimum 

appliance efficiency standarda provide 

reasonable paybacks on the additiOflal 

first cae ta. 

3. Additional Information 

The localities also believe that 

enforcement of appliance effIciency 

standards developed through the 

consensus approach is the most 

effective means of regulation withou1 

imposing an undue burden on interstate 

commerce. The State itself supports tM 

appliance effeciency standards of rts 

localities all being in its own best 

interests since 90 percent of the State's 

energy needs are met by imported oil. 

natural gas and coal. 

4. Pr?po~ed Detennination 

DOE has reviewed Missouri's petition 

in acc'ordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b){3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis, 

DOE has determined that Missouri has 

provided prima facie evidence shOWing 

that the building code ordinances of its 

localities within the State are more 

stringent than DOE's NleTor water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners, and furnaces; are 

justifIed by a s'ignificant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430..33 exempting the 

building code ordinances of its localit:es 

within the State of Missouri from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2}(A) of the Act. 

TEXAS (TX022). The petiton 

submitted by Texas seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

building code ordinances of 49 localities 

as they pertain to the energy efficiency 

of water heaters. room and central air 

conditioners and furnaces. The petition 

indicates that the technical basis of the 

appliance efficiency provisions of all 49 

building codes is the ASHRAE Standard 

90-75. 83 See § 430.33 (e}{15). (OilS). 

(g)(16). and (h)(16) of loday's proposed 

rule for a listing of the localities of 

Texas with building code energy 

.. ASHRAE Standard 90-75 5p<!Cifies two lev"l. of 

performance for rOOtII and cenlnl air conditioners 

and waler bealers. Texas has clarified. however. 

that all these building codes reference tbe must 

recenf pet10nnance levels in the ASHRAf: Standard 

00-75. SpedlleaDy. tM January 1. 1980. 1"",,1 for 

room and central air conditioners and the January 1-

1977. level ror waler heatera. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 101 / Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32965 

efficiency requirements pertaining to 

water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

respectively. which DOE is proposing to 

exempt from Federal supersession. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. The building codes of 

the localities of Texas provide that 

electric storage water heaters shall have 

a standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area; and' 

that gas- and oil-fired storage water 

heaters shall have a recovery efficiency 

not less than 75 percent and a standby 

loss not exceeding the quantity of 

2.3+67 IV. expressed in percent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the rated atorage capacity in 

gallons. II< 

Room Air Conditions aIld Central Air 

Conditioners. The building codes of the 

localities of Texas provide that room air 

conditioners and central air conditioners 

shall have an energy efficiency ratio nol 

less than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour. 85 

Furnaces. The building codes of the 

localities of Texas provide that 

furnances shall have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 75 percent. ... 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petition states that it is in the besl 

inierest of the State to continue to utilize 

its resources as efficiently as possibl~. 

3. Additional Information 

The petition states that preemption of 

such rules is unnecessarily disruptive to 

local commerce and the local power to 

govern. The local governments believe 

"The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 water heater 

standards reference the ANSI Standurd Z72.1-72 

lest method and the ANSI Standard A21.10.3-74 te&! 

method. DOE has reviewed these tesl methods and 

f.nds that thev differ from the DOE waler heater test 

procedure. The Department is treating these tesl 

methods as an inlergral part of Ihe waler healer 

standard. of the localitie. of Texas for wbich 

exemption from preemption is being sought. 

""The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 room air 

condHioner standard references the ANSI Standard 

Z::34.1-:-:: test method which DOE adopted as it. 

test crocedure for room air conditioners. The 

ASHARE Stand"rd 90-75 central air conditioner 

standard references Ihe ARI Standard 21G-75 test 

method. DOE has reviewed this lest method and 

finds that it differs from the DOE cenlral air 

condItioner test procedure. The Department i8 

treating these I".t methods as an inlegtal part of the 

room air conditioner and central air conditioner 

standards of the localities of T~xas for wt.ich 

e.\c",pti,m from preemption is being sought. 

""The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 furnace 

sl~ntlards reference the ANSI SIandard Z21.13-14 

t •. st method. the A'lSI. Standard Z:!1.47-71 lest 

metbnd. Ihe ANSI Standard 91.1-72 leSI method. 

a"d Ihr iii Standard 0.6 tesl melhod. DOE had 

reviewed Ihese lest method. and finds that they 

diIT", from Ihp DOE furnace test procedure. The 

[l"pArtment is treating these test method~ as .. n 

inte!;ral par! of the fumance standards of the 

loo.lilie. of Texas for which ex.mplion from 

prpe'."phon i. being sought. 

the standards are in the best economic Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Interest of their citizens and that Air Conditioners. Section &402.1.1 of 

enforcement of these standards is the the adopted code. as amended by New 

most effective means of regulation Jersey. provides that room air 

without placing an undue burden on conditioners and central air conditioners 

interstate commerce. with cooling capacities less than 65.000 

Btu per bour shall have an energy 4. Proposed Determination efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 Btu per 

DOE has reviewed Texas' petition in watt-hour. II The Tariff ordered by the 

accordance with the requirements of New Jersey BPU permits the Atlantic 

section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 City Electric Company to require thai 

of the regulation. Based on its a·nalysis. central air conditioners placed in its 

DOE has determined that Texas has service territory have an energy 

provided prima facie evidence showing efficiency ratio not less than 8.0 Btu per that the building code ordinances of 49 walt-hour. 

localities within the State are more Furnaces. Section E-402.1.5 of the 

stringent than DOE's rule for water adopted code provides that forced air 

heaters. room air conditioners. central furnaces. low pressure steam boilers. 

air conditioners and furnaces; are and hot water boilers shall have a justified by a significant State interest; steady slate efficiency not less than 74 

and do not appear to impose an unoue percent except for gravity furnaces 

burden on interstate commerce. which shall have a steady state 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a efficency not less than 69 percent. 89 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting the 

building code ordinances of 49 localities 2. Significant State Interest 

within Texas from the preemptive In its petition. New Jersey asserts thai 

provisions of section 327(a)(2)(A) of the these requirements produce substantial 

Act. life cycle cost savings for the citizens of 

NEW JERSEY (NJ023). The petition New Jersey without lessening the utility 

submitted by New Jersey seeks a rule of the covered items. New Jersey states 

exempting from Federal preemption that these requirements do not lessen 

.New Jersey Administrative Code section competition or create an undue burden 

14A:3-4.4 as readopted on July 11. 1983. on interstate commerce. 

Section 14A:3-4.4 of the New Jersey New Jersey asserts that although 

Code adopts by reference the BOCA water heaters meeting its minimum 

Basic Eriergy Conservation Code of 1981. efficiency requirements will have higher 

with amendments. for new construction first costs. the life cycle costs are less. or substantial renovation of buildings. resulting. for a gas-fired water heater. in 

The adopted code with its amendments a saving of $51.20 or 6.4 million Btu per 

contains energy efficiency requirements year for an increased cost of only $8.53 

applicable to water heaters. room air per year. 90 Although no Statewide totals 

conditioners. central air conditioners. are available. surveys done by New 

and furnances. New Je.rsey also seeks a Jersey's electric and gas utilities indicate 

rule exempting from Federal preemption that approximately 45 percent of all 

the Tariff of the New Jersey Board of - water heaters use natural gas. 45 percent 

Public Utilities (BPU) in Docket No. use electricity and Lite remaining 10 

8111-1009 as it pertains to central air 

condi tioners. 

1. Slate Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section E-503.1 of the 

adopted code specifies that the water 

heaters shall conform to the energy 

requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90-

75. These requirements are: electric 

storage water heaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4.0 watts per 

square foot of tank surface area and 

gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters 

shall have a recovery efficiency not less 

than 75 percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity of 2.3 + 67 IV. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. "'Ithere V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. 87 

... New Jersey's water heater standards reference 

the ANSI Standard C72.1-12 test method and th~ 

ANSI Standard Z21.l0.3-74 lea' method. DOE has 

reviewed these test methods and fin& that they 

differ from the DOE water heater tesI procedure. 

The Department is trealing these test methods as an 

integral part of New Jersey·s water heater standards 

for which exemption from preemption is being 

8Ou!!hL 

.. Nf!w Jersey's room air conditioner standard 

references Ihe ANSI Standard Z234.1-72 test 

method which DOE adopted as its test procedure 

for room air conditioners. New Jersey's central air 

conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 

A10-75 test melhod. DOE has reviewed Ihis lest 

method and finds thaI it differs from the DOE 

central air conditioner test procpdure. The 

D~par!ment is treating these test methods as an 

int..gral part of New 'ersey's room air conditioner 

Bnd central air conditione~ siandards for which 

ex .. mption from preemption is t..eing sought. 

"New Jersey's furnace standards reference thr 

DOE furnace test procedure. 

.. In ita analysis simple life Cicie cost savings 

were computed by New Jerse)' USIng the foU"wmg 

assumptions: increased cost or water heater. Sl;;.tl; 

cosl of natura! gas lor water heatmg only. $11.00 per 

million Btu: life of waler healer. 15 Y~Krs. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32966 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

percent is made up of oil or propane 

units. New Jersey believes that an economic analysis of oil-fired or electric 

water heaters would certainly yield 

results comparable to those presented 

for gas-fired water heaters. New Jersey 

estimates 20.000 new housing units 

annually resulting in an annual saving of 

128 billion Btu for residential use alone. 

without regard to any commerical or industrial savings which might result. 

New Jersey states that in the highly 

competitive room air conditioner market an energy efficiency ratio of 6.8 Btll per 

watt-hour does not cause any price 

penalty since prices vary more by 

manufacturer and special discounts than 

by relatively small changes in efficiency. 

New JerseY estimates an annual savings 

of $13.90 and 139 kilowatt-hours per unit as a result of its minimum efficiency 

requirements with no increase in first 

cost." Naw Jersey states that in the 

highly competitive central air 

conditioner market the minimum 

efficiencies set by the New Jersey Gode 

and the BPU Tariff do not cause any 

significant price penalty. since prices 

vary more by manufacturer and special 

discount than by relatively small 

changes in the efficiency. New Jersey 

estimates that a central air conditioner 

meeting the New Jersey Code would save 353 kilowatt-hours annually or $35.30 per unit per year" and that a centra! air conditioner meeting the BPU 

Tariff would save 750 kilowatt-hour 

annually or $92.65 per unit per year." 

Cased on the above figures, an estimate 

of 10.000 new centrally air-conditioned 

housing units annually. and an 11.000 

Btu per kilowatt-hour electric generation 

rate. the savings throughout the State 

would be in excess of 78 billion Btu 

annually. 

New Jersey point! out that it is a SUmmp.T peaking State and that the room and cs:nral air conditioner requirements 

reduce peak load as well as total energy 

requirements. New Jersey states that it 

has seen no evidence that furnaces 

meeting its minimum requirements have 8 higher first cost than less efficient 

units. New Jersey estimates that its code 

•• In its analysis. New Jersey a_sum,. •• code level 

unit. 6.8. would be used in place of 8 unit wilh an 

energy effiCiency ratio of 5.5 .• unil .i.e of 8.000 lltu 

pet hour. 500 hours of opera,ion per year. and an 

electricHy CMt oi $.10 per kHOW311-hour. 

.. in its analysis. N't;W' l~!3ey 8S5UmF:.S a r..ooe level 

unit. one with an energy eiilcienc} rallo of 608 

would be us,d in p!3r.e of a unit with an energy 

efficier.cy ratio of 6.0. 6 unit siu 01 36JltMI Bta I"" 

hour. 500 hours of 01''''''''''' per year. and aD electricity coet of $.10 per kilowatt-hour. 

e In its andl,sis. the Bpt: assume. a T.riiT levul 

unit. one an energy efficiency ratio or 8_0. would be 

used in pl"ce of a unit with an energy .mcien~y 

ralic oIS.O. a "':"lil size oi .6.000 Btu PPI hour. 500 

hou ... of operation per year. and an elpctricity cost 

of 12.3536t per kilnv..bll-hour. 

requirements for furnaces result in an 

annual saving in excess of 4.200.009 Btu. 

Equivalent annual cost savings per unit 

are estimated at $29.40 for gas units and 

$33.60 for oil units at no additional cost 

to the consumer." Based on the above 

figures and 20.000 new housing units 

annually. New Jersey estimates an annual saving of 84 billion Btu for 

residential use alone. without regard to 

any commercial or industrial savings 

which might result. . 

3. Additional Informailon 

New Jersey states that it has almost no indigenous energy supplies so every 

dollar not spent on energy can be used 

by consumers to support the goods and 

services available within the State. New 

Jersey also states that preemption of 

part of the State Construction Code 

would require expensive retraining of its 

code inspectors. 

New Jersey claims that no lessening of 

competition has resulted from 

imposition of its minimum performance 

standards since the number of 

manufacturers supplying the Slate with 

each category of covered product has 

not changed due to Code requirements. 

At the time of passage: public hearings were held and no manufacturer of a covered product objected to the required' 

levels of minimum efficiency. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed New Jersey's 

petitIon in accordance with the 

requirements of section 3Z7(b)(3} of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based on this analysis. DOE has determined 

that New Jersey has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections &-

402.1.1. &-402.1.5 and &-503.1 of the 

BOCA Basic Energy Conservation Code 

of 1981 as adopted with amendments by 

section 14A:3-4.4 of the New Jersey 

Administrative Code. as readopted on July 11.1983. and the Tariff of the New 

Jersey Board of Public Utilities in Docket 

No. 8111-1009 a.re more stringent than 

DOE's rule for water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central conditioners and 

furnaces; are justified by a significant 

-State interest; and do not appear to 

impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes 

.. New leney cites the 1971 "New Jersey Energy 

Conservation Plan; A Necessary Commitment" 

prepared by Resource Planning Auociat". and 

Wilbur Smith and AsSociates for the Slate Energy 

Office. That reporl estin.aled a 6 percent saYing on 

rue! use would resull from a 72 percent minrmum 

efficiency leveL New Jersey estimales an everage fuel consumption of 70.000.000 Btu for new houses. 

New Jer."y 8tates that the avera~e cost 01 notural 

gaa to New Jersey consumers i. Sl".00 per million 

Blu. New Jersey estimat". an oil price of $8.00 pet 

million Btu. New Jersey aM!Ue. that .inc. il!. present 

energy efficiency standaru5 are higher Iholn m the 

1977 report. lavings would actually be gruater. 

~. 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting sections-E-402.1.1. E-402.1.5 

and &-503.1 of the BOCA Basic Energy 

Conservation Code of 1981 as adopted 

with amendments by section 14A:3-4.4 

of the New Jersey Administrative Code. as readopted on July 11. 1983. and the 

Tariff of the New Jersey Board of Public 

Utilities in Docket No. 8111-1009 as they 

pertain to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

IWNOIS (IL024). The petition 

submitted by Illinois seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

local building code standards for 177 

Illinois localities as they pertain to 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. 

water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

Illinois' petition included a separate 

list for each product identifying the 

localities that.have energy effici'!ncy 

requirements incorporated into their 

building codes thai are applicable to 

such product. which model buildi::1g 

codes these are based on (BOCA. 

Uniform Building Code. or National 

Building Codel. if any. and the date thai 

each locality adopted its code.9-; Tbe 

petition also included copies of those 

sections of the various model building 

codes referenced which partain 10 

household equipment energy effidency 

requirements and copies of the building 

code ordinances for those localities 

which have not adopted one of the 

model building codes. 96 

"In some cases the same locality is hsled uoder 

two different categories of buUd;:18 code 

requirem'?nts. These localities are: Carbondule City. 

Glen Carbon Village. Grayslake Village and 

Sprin~ft€ld City_ For water heaters. cent"al air 

conditioners and furnaces. Carbondal. Cily i. lisl~d 

as ha,-ing adopted the National Buillling Code and 

having its own local code baa<:d on ASllRAE 

Standard 90-75; Glen Carbon Village and Gray.lo~e 

Village are listed as having adopted the 1978 

version of the BOCA code and the 1961 ver.ion of 

the BOCA code: and Springfield City is lis:ec cs 

having adopted the 1978 version of Ihe BOCA ende 

and haVing it. own local code based on ASIIRAE 

Standard 9-75. Since DOE has no objections 10 any 

of the building code requirements. tod .. >". notice 

propn.es to grant hoth buiidmg code requiremenls 

Cor each of these (our localities. DOE is in fonnal 

conlac! with the Slate of Jlhnois to seel< cl"rifi'olion 

or the buiidi-ng code requirements of thc~p. icur 

localiti". DOE expects to r~ceive the inforrnallc>n 

requested during the comment period on the 

proposed rule. 

"'n the cas. of Oak wood Hiiis VilI"~ •. DUE 

needs additIonal information beyond Ihal >up;:!,"~ 

In the petition befo~f a final determinHt.un r,a~ be 

made to exempt its building code reqUirements iru!'ll 

preemp.!~on. Oakwood HH:5 Village is lJHk .. ",it,J ciS 

having a buiiding code other lhan one of :he moJd 

building codps with energy efficiency r~'l"i....,m~!lts 

applicable to wate1 hearers, central air cond;i~nners 

and furnace •. However. no copy of O&kw""d Hill. 

Contm:.lt!d 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32967 

Today's notice proposes to grant 

Illinois' petition for exemption from 

preemption of the building codes of the 

11710calilies for which Illinois had 

petitioned. See § 430.33 (e )(17). (f)(17). 

(g}(18). and (hJ(18) of today's proposed 

rule for a listing of the localities of 

Illinois with building code energy 

efficiency requirements pertaining to 

water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

respectively. which DOE is proposing to 

exempt from Federal supersession. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers. and Freezers. The State of 

Dlinois petitioned for an exemption from 

DOE standards for refrigerators. 

refrigerator-freezers. and freezers. DOE 

has reviewed the petition. inc;:luding the 

attachments. and has found no standard 

for these products. However. in an 

amendment to the Illinois petition. the 

State clarified its position on this issue. 

Illinois believes the ASHRAE Standards 

for "air conditioning" equipment apply 

to residential freezing and refrigerating 

equipment. DOE has reviewed these 

requirements and believes that they are not applicable to residential 

refrigerators and freezers. Therefore. the 

DOE standard shall prevail in Illinois. 

f,t'aler Heaters. For those localities in 

lIlinois that have adopted building codes 

.. which are based on the ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. electric storage water 

heaters are required to have a standby 

loss which. for building codes adopted 

prior to January 1. 1977. does not exceed 

4 watts per square foot of tank surface 

area. Gas- and oil-fired storage water 

heaters are required to have a recovery 

efficiency which. for building codes 

adopted prior to January 1. 1977. is not 

less than 70 percent and; for building 

codes adopted thereafter. is not less 

than 75 percent. Gas- and oil-fired 

storage water heaters are also required 

to have a standby loss which. for 

building codes adopted prior to January 

1. 1977. does not exceed the quantity of 

4.3 + 67/V. expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy. where 

V equals the volume of the water heater 

in gallons: and for building codes 

adopted thereafter. does not exceed the 

quantity of 2.3 + 67/V. expressed in 

percent per hour of the stored thermal 

energy. where V equals the volume of 

the water heater in gallons. 97 

Villa~e's building code was provided. DOE needS 

spp.cific informalion regarding Oakwood Hill. 

VilI,,!! •• building code equipment enel'llY efficiency 

reqUirements for DOE 10 propose 10 Ilranllllinoi.' 

petition for exemption from preemptIon as it applies 

to Oakwood Hills Village. . 

., The ASH RAE Standard 90-75 water heater 

standards reference the ANSI Standard C72.t-7% 

For those localities in Illinois that 

have adopted building codes which are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. electric storage water heaters shall 

have a standby loss not exceeding 4 

watts per square foot of tank surface. or 

43 watts. whichever is greater. Gas- and 

oil-rued storage water heaters with 

input ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or 

less shall have a recovery efficiency not 

less than 75 percent and a standby Joss 

not exceeding the quantity of 2.3+67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater in 

gallons. Oil-fired water heaters with 

input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu per 

hour are required to have a combustion 

efficiency not less than 80 percent. 

Additionally. oil-fired water heaters 

with input ratings exceeding 75.ooo13tu 

per hour but less than 4.000 Btu per hour 

per gallon of self stored water are 

rettuired to have a standby loss which. 

for building codes adopted prior to 

January 1.1982. does not exceed the 

quantity 2.8+0.002Q/V and. for building 

codes adopted thereafter. does not 

exceed the quantity 2.8+67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

slored thermal energy. where V equals 

the rated volume of the water heater. in 

gallons. and Q equals the rated input of 

the water heater. in Btu per hour." 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. For those localities in 

Illinois that have adopted building codes 

which are based on the ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. room and central air 

conditioners are required to have an 

energy efficiency ratio which. for 

building codes adopted after January 1. 

1977 but before January 1. 1980. is not 

less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour; and for 

building codes adopted thereafter. is not 

less than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour." 

tesl method and the ANSI Siandard Z21.103-74 teet 

method. DOE hal reviewed these teel methods and 

finds that they diITer from the DOE waler heater test 

procedure. The Department is lJ'eating these tesl 

methods as an integral part of the waler healer 

standards of those Ulinois localities for which 

exemption from preemption is being sought. 

"The ASHRAE Standard 9OA-l9BO waler heater 

standards reference the DOE waler heater leSI . procedure. 

-The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 room air 

conditioner standard references the ANSI Standard 

2:234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted as Hs 

test procedure for room air conditioners. The 

ASHRAE Standard 90.75 central air conditioner 

standard references the ARI Standard 210-75 lest 

method. DOE has reviewed Ihis test method and 

finds Ihat it diffen from the OOE central air 

conditioner tesl procedure. The DepaMment is 

treating these tesl methods .a an integral paM of the 

room air conditioner and central air conditioner 

.tandards of IhoM Illinois localities for which 

exemption from preemption is being lIOught. 

For those localities in Illinois tha t 

have adopted building codes which are 

based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. room and central air conditioners are required to have an energy 

efficiency ratio not less than 6.B Btu per 

watt-hour. 100 

Furnaces, For those localities in 

Illinois that have adopted building codes 

which are based on the ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. furnaces shall have a 

combustion efficiency not less than 75 

perc.ent at maximum rated output. 101 

. For those localities in Dlinois that 

have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. furnaces shall h ave a steady state 

combustion efficiency not less than 74 

percent. except for gravity central 

furnaces which shall have a steady state 

combusion efficiency not less than 69 

percent. '02 

2. Significant State Interest 

In its petition. illinois states that 

appliance energy efficiency standards 

have been a part of the law of Illinois . 

and its local jurisdictions for some time. 

The reasons for incorporating these 

standards into the local building codes 

include: energy prices have risen 

dramatically in the past 10 years. 

stricter environmental controls have 

exacerbated the dollar drain on Illinois. 

and the standards enable the localities 

to keep money within the local 

community. thereby creating additional 

employment and increasing personal 

income in the community. 

3. Additional Information 

The petition cites four additional 

reasons why illinois established 

standards: speculative constructionmost new residential construction is 

speculatively built for subsequent sale 

where the primary objective is to 

minimize up-front costs; rental 

housing-more than one-third of illinois 

households live in rental housing-

"'The ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1980 room air 

conditioner standard references the ANSI Standard 

Z234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted a. il8 

test procedure for room air conditioners. The 

ASHRAf Standard 9OA-I9BO central air conditioner 

standard references the DOE central air conditioner 

tesl procedure. 

••• The ASHRAf Standard 90-75 furnace 

standards reference the ANSI Siandard Z21.13-74 

lest method. the ANSI Siandard Z21.4i -71 test 

method. the ANSI Siandard 91.1-72 test method. 

and the HJ Standard 6.6 test method. 00£ has 

rel1iewed theM test methods and finds thaI they 

differ from ihe DOE rurnace test procedure. The 

Department is lJ'eating Ihese lest methods as an integral paM or the furnace standards of those 

lIIinoi. localities for which exemption from 

preemption is being sougnt. 

... 'l'!te ASHRAE Standard 9OA-l9BO furnace 

standards reference the OOE furnace test procedure. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32968 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday, August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

where builders and landlords are less 

concerned about their tenants' operating 

costs: absence of reliable information- consumers are well aware that energy 

prices have risen rapidly but are less' aware of the opportunities to avoid 

higher prices through energy efficiency 

improvements; and mobile popu!ationmany households live in their home for 

only a few years and tend to discount 

the value of long term energy savings. 

The petition further states that a significant number of localities have' 

considered long run energy costs and 

because of the long term communitywide economic impacts. their 

promulgated standards are justified and 

the State of Illinois supports the 

continued implementation of their 

standards. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Illinois' petition in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b) (3) of t.ie Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Illinois has 

provided prima facie evidence shoWing 

that Illinois' local energy efficiency . 

standards are more stringent than DOE's 

rule for water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces; are justified by a 

significant State interest: and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending . § 403.33 exempting Illinois'local energy 

efficiency standards from the 

preemptive provisions of section 327(11) 

(2) of the Act. . UTAH (UT025). The petition 

submitted by Utah seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

1983 Utah Model Energy Code as it . 

pertains to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces. Under the authority of 

sections 63-9-45 through 53. as enacted 

by Chapter 12, Laws of Utah 1976. and as amended by Chapter 178, Laws of 

Utah 1977, the State of Utah adopted the 

1983 Model Energy Code. as published 

by th"l Council of American Building 

Officials. as the 1983 Utah Model Energy 

Code in May 1983. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. For electric storage 

water heaters, section 504.2.1.1 of the 

adopted Code specifies a maximum' 

standby loss of 4.0 watts per square foot 

of tank surface area. For gas- and oilfired storage water healers with input 

ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or less. 

section 504.2.1.2 specifies a minimum 

recovery efficiency of 75 percent and a maximum standby loss of the quantity 

2.3+67/V. expressed in percent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the volume of the water healer in 

gallons. For oil-fired water heaters an input rating oC greater than 75.000 Btu 

per hour. section 504.2.1.2 specifies a minimum combustion efficiency of 80 

percent; and if these oil-fired water 

heaters have an input rating that is less 

than 4.000 Btu per hour per gallon of 

self-stored water, the standby loss shall 

not exceed the quantity 2.8 +67/V, 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the volume of the water heater in 

gallons. 101 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. For room and central 

air condi tioners. section 503.4.5 of the 

adopted Code specifies a minimum 

energy efficiency ratio of 6.8 Btu per 

watt-hour. to. 

Furnaces. Section 503.4.3 of the 

adopted Code specifies a minimum 

steady state effiCiency or 74 percent for 

forced air furnaces. low pressure steam 

boilers. and hot water boilers and a minimum steady state efficiency of 69 

percent for gravity central furnaces. 106 

2. Significant State Interest 

In its petition. Utah states that no adverse comments were received when 

the 1983 Model Energy Code was circulated for public comment. 

3. Additional Information 

Utah further asserts that competition 

will not be lessened as a result of the 

imposition of standards but rather a 

shift to the most efficient appliances. 

Utah states that numerous building 

codes exist (e.g., Uniform Building Code. 

Uniform Mechanical Code. Uniform Fire 

Code. National Electric Code. and the 

Utah Plumbing Code) with no consideration o£lessening of 

competition and what without its 

appliance efficiency code. Utah would. 

becdme a "dumping ground" for 

inefficient appliances. Utah further 

states that its legislature has declared 

the need to "conserve valuable energy 

resources. make more efficient use of 

energy and control costs." 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has review.ed Utah's petition in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

... Utah'. water healer standards reference the 

DOE wa ter hea ter teal procedure. 

.... Utah·. room air conditioner standurd 

references the DOE room air conditioner lest 

procedure. Utah's central air conditioner 8tandard 

references the DOE central air condilloner teat 

procedure. 

... Utah'. furnace standards reference the DOE 

furnace test procedure. 

DOE has determined that Utah has 

provided prima facie evidence shOWing 

that sections 503.4.3. 503.4.5. 504.2.1.1 

and 504.2.1.2 of the 1983 Model Energy 

Code. adopted under the authority of 

sections 63-9-45 through 53. as eacted 

by Chapter 12. Laws of Utah 197b, and as amended by Chapter 178, Laws of 

Utah 1977. are more stringent than 

DOE's rule for water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furna~s: is justified by a significant 

State interest; and does not appear 10 

impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes 

to issue a rule amending § 430.33 

exempting sections 503.4.3. 503.4.5. 

504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2 of the 1983 Model 

Energy Code. adopted under the 

authority of sections 63-9-45 through 53, 

as enacted by Chapter 12. Laws of Utah 

1976. and as amended by Chapter 178. 

Laws·of Utah 1977. ·from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

IOWA (IAG26). The petition submitted 

by Iowa seeks a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption the appliance 

efficiency requirements in Iowa 

Administrative Code. section 680-

16.800(3) which adopts by reference the 

1983 Model Energy Code as published 

by the Council of American Building 

Officials. The 1983 Model Energy Code 

provides for three approaches for 

compliance: a systems approach 

(Chapter 4). a component performance 

approach (Chapter 5). and a specified 

acceptable practice approach (Chapter 

6). Minimum energy efficiency 

requirements are specified in the 

component performance approach and 

the specified acceptable practice 

approach. These requirements pertain to 

water heaters. room air conditioners. 

central air conditioners and furnaces. 

Specifically. Iowa requests that the 

following sections in the 1983 Model 

Energy Code not be superseded: 503.4.3 

and Table No. 5-5; 503.4.5 and Table No. 

5-6: 503.4.6 and Table No. 5-7; 504.4.7 

and Table No. 5-8; 504.2.1; 106 603.2 and 

Tables No. 6-4. 6-5. !Hi. 6-7. 6-8; and 

604.1.1. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. For electric storage 

heaters. sections 504.2.1.1 and 604.1.1 

specify a maximum standby loss of 4.0 

watts per square foot of tank surface 

'''The petition requested that section 504.2.1.2 t,.. 

exempt. which applies only to gas· and oil.lll·ed 

storage water heaten. Iowa is assumed to also 

nlquest an exemption for section 504.2.1.1. which 

applies to electric storage water heaters. be,;ause 

this section ia cited in section 004.1.1. Thus. Iowa i. 

seeking an exemption for section 504.2.1. which. 

covers sections 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2. for el~'C!rIc. 

g .... fired. and oil·fired sforage water heafers. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register / VoL 49, No, 161 I Friday. August 17. 1964 I Proposed Rules 32969 

area. For gas- and for oil-fired storage 

water heaters with input ratings of 

75.000 Btu per hour or less. sections 

504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1' specify a minimum 

recovery efficiency of 75 percent and a maximum standby loss of the quantity 

2.3 + 6i/V. expressed in percent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the volume of the waler heater in 

gallons. For oil-fired water heaters with an input rating of greater than 75.000 Btu 

per hour. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 

specify a minimum combustion 

efficiency of 80 percent; and if these oil 

waler heaters have an input rating of 

less than 4,000 But per gallon of selfstored water. the standby loss shall not 

exceed the quantity 2.8+ 67/V. 

expressed in percent per hour of the 

stored thermal energy. where V equals 

the volume of the water heater in 

ga llons. 101 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

Air Conditioners. For room air 

conditioners and central air 

conditioners, sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 

and Tables No. 5-6 and 6-6 specify a minimum energy efficiency ratio of 6.8 

BIu per watt-hour. loa 

The Department is not considering 

lowa's request that sections 503.4.6 and 

503.4.7 and Nos. 5-7. 5-8. 6-5, 6-7. and 

6-8 (for self-contained water chillers.-

condenserless water chillers. 

compressors and condenser units'over 

65.000 Btu per hour and heat operated 

cooling equipment) also be exempt from 

the Federal Standard. These air 

conditioning units. which primarily are 

commercial units. are not considered in 

this rulemaking because they are not" 

covered products under the 

Department's appliance program and no 

exemption is needed. 

Furnaces. Sections 503.4.3 and 

603.2.2 and Tables No. 5-5 and 6-4 

specify a minimum steady state 

efficiency of 74 percent for forced air 

furnaces. low pressure steam boilers. 

and hot water boilers and a minimum " 

steady sta te efficiency of 69 percent for 

gravity central furnaces. UKI 

2. Significant State Interest 

The petitioner asserts that the State's 

legislative actions are based upon an interest to reduce the use of energy in" 

Iowa because 98 percent of the energy 

used is imported and 70 percent of every 

dollar spent for retail energy leaves the 

I.' Iowa', water heater standards ref~rence the 

DOE water heater lest procedure. 

'''lows's room air conditioner ttandard 

references Ihe DOE room air conditioner test procedure. lowa's central air conditioner standard ref~ .... n(:e. the DOE central air conditioner te.t 

procedure. 

'''Iowa's rumace standards reference the DOE 

furanee test procedure. 

State and is a drain on the State's 

economy, Iowa's energy bill exceeds $5 

billion dollars per year with $3.5 billion 

dollars leaVing the State annually. 

3. Additional Information 

The petitioner further asserts that 

Iowa rulemaking procedures require 

public hearings be held regarding any 

adoptions or revisions of any building 

code; and that there were no objections or comments made either in 1977 or in 

1963 when the Model Energy Code 

relating to efficiency requirement for the 

included appliances was being 

considered for adoption. Finally. the 

petitioner asserts that there is no burden on interstate commerce as manufacturers already are functioning 

with these state regulations in place. 

4. Proposed Determination . 

DOE has reviewed Iowa's petition in 

accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Iowa has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

the sections 503,4.3. 503.4.5. 504.2.1.1. 

504.2.1.2. 603.2.1. 603.2.2. and 604.1.1 and 

Tables 5-5, 5-6. 6-4. and 6-6 of the 1983 

Model Energy Code adopted by 

reference by Iowa Administrative Code 

section 680-16.800(3) are more stringent 

than DOE's rule for water heaters, room 

air conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces; are justified by a 

significant Slate interest; and do not 

appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE 

proposes to issue a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting sections 503.4.3. 

503,4.5. 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2. 603.2.1. 

603.2.2. and 604.1.1 and Table Nos. 5-5. 

5-6. 6-4. and 6-6 of the 1983 Model 

Energy Code. adopted by reference by 

Iowa Administrative Code Section 660-

16.800(3). from the preemption 

provisions ofsection 32i(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

WEST VIRGINIA (WV027). The 

petition submitted by West Virginia 

seeks a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption section 5-21-2 of ' the 1961 

West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction 

Guidelines as it pertains to water 

heaters, room air conditioners, central 

air conditioners and furnaces. This State 

regulation adopts by reference ASHRAE 

Standard 90-75. The 1961 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines 

reguire that an energy code at least as 

stringent as ASHRAE Standard 90-75 be 

adopted and enforce throughout the 

state. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 7.3.1 of the 

adopted standard provides that electric 

storage wllttlr heaters shall have a standby loss no greater than 4.0 watts 

per 8qu~re foot of tank surface area and 

that gas- and oil-fired storage water ~eaters shall have a recovery efficiency 

not less than 75 percent and a standby 

loss not exceeding the quantity of 

2.3+67/V. expressed in percent per hour 

of the stored thermal energy. where V 

equals the volume of the water healer in 

gallons. 110 

Room and Central Air Conditioners. 

section 6.3 of the adopted standard 

provides that all room and central air 

conditioners shall have an energy 

efficiency ratio nolless than 6.8 Btu per 

watt-hour. III 

Furnaces. Section 6.6 of the adopted 

standard provides that gas- and oil-fired 

furnaces shall have a combustion 

effiCiency not less than 75 percent. m 

2. Significant State Interest 

West Virginia states that the 

supersession of the appliance efficiency 

standards cited in its petition would cause an undue administrative and 

enforcement burden on those 

municipalities already burdened with 

limited funding for building code 

inspection services. 

Review of currently available U.S. 

equipment addressed in the petition 

shows that there are products 

manufactured that do not meet the 

minimum criteria of the West Virginia 

State Code. Without such minimum 

criteria. the energy costs to consumers and energy resource consumption within 

the State would be expected to increase 

as a result of new construction 

containing less efficient products. 

"OWest Virginia'. water beater standards 

reference the ANSI Standard C7%.1-72 test method 

and the ANSI Standard Z21.10.3-74 te.t method, 

DOE haa reviewed thele test methods and finda 

that they differ from the DOE water heater test 

procedure, The Department is treating these test methods 88 an integral paM of West Virginia's water 

heater .tandards for which exemption from 

preemption is beill8 sought. 

III West Virginia'. room air conditioner standard 

refereoces the ANSI Standard 2:234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted a. its test procedure 

for room air conditioners. Welt Virginia's central 

air conditioner standard references the ARl 

Standard 210-75 test method. DOE has reviewed 

this test method and linda thaI it difiers from the 

DOE central air conditioner tesl procedure. The 

Dep .... lmenl is treating these test methods as an 

integral paM of WeBI Virginia'. room air conditioner 

and central air conditioner standards for which 

exemption from preemption i. being sought. 

Il'Wetlt Virginia'. furnace slandards reference 

the ANSI Standard z.."1.13-74 teat method, the ANSI 

Standard z.."1.41-71 tesl method. the Ar.:SI Slandard 91.1-11 lest and the HI Standard 6.6 lest melhod. 

DOE has re\'iewed thele lest methods and finds 

thllt they differ from the DOE furnace tesl 

procedure. The Department i. treating these lest 

method. a. an inte~r81 pari of West Virginia', 

furnace Jlandaro. for which exemption irom 

preemption is bein/lllOugbl. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32970 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 1151 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

3. Additional Iniormatil1n, 

In its petition. West Virginia states 

that since the regulations fOI which it 

requestluxemption became par.t of the 

West Virginia State Code in 1981. no 

manufacturer. retailer. or distributor of 

these products has. indicated opposition 

to the Colfe provisions and'that. 

therefore. the Code provisions are nat a 

burden on interstate commerce and 

have not adversely impacted the ' 

building construction community. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed West Virginia's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b l(3} of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on this analysis. DOE has determined 

that West Virginia has provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 6.3. 

6.6. and 7.3.1 of ASHRAE Standard 90-

75. adopted by reference by section 5-

21-2 of the 1981 West Virginia Energy 

Cost Reduction Guidelines are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are 

justified by a significant State intere&t; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. ' 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

Sections 6.3. 6.6. and 7.3.1 of ASHRAZ 

Standard 90-75, adopted by reference by 

Section 5-21-2 of the 1981 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines as they pertain to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces from the preemptive 

provision of section 327(a)(2] of tIle Act. 

MlNNESOT A (MN028). The petition 

submitted by Minnesota seeks a rule 

exempting from FederaL preemption 

Minn. Stat. 116J.19. subdivisions 8. 13, 

and 14 as they pertain to water heaters. 

room air conditioners, central air 

conditioners and furnaces. On 

September 22. 1983, Minnesota amended 

Minn. Stat. 116}-19 subd. 8 to . incorporate. by reference. the 1983 

Model Energy Code. as published by the 

Council of American Building Officials. 

subject to specific changes. Some of the 

changes to the 1983 Model Energy Code 

incorporated into the Minnesota law 

include stricter levels for equipment 

efficiences. The effective date for the 

amended Minn. Stat. 116}-19 subd. 8 

was January 1'. 1984. Previously. Minn. 

Stat. 116J-19 subd. a incorporated by 

reference the ASHRAE Standard 90.75. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Mino. Stat. 1I6J-19 

subd. 8 specifies a maximum standby 

loss of 4 watts per square foot of tank 

surface area for electric storage water 

heaters instaned in new construction Or' 

substantlar renovation. 113 

Minn. Stat. 1161-19 subd. 8 also 

requires gas- and oil-fired stora-ge water 

heaters installed in new construction or 

substantial renovation to have a 

recovery efficiency not less than 75' 

percent and a standby loss not 

exceeding the quantity af 2'.3 of 67/V, 

expt'esserl in percent peT hour of stored 

thermal energy. where V equals the 

ra ted ~lume of the water hea fer 

expressed in ganons. TJ4' .) '. 

Room Air Conclitiooers. Minn. Stat. 

116J-19 subd. 13 requires that no new 

room air conditioners be sold. installed 

or transported for resale into Minnesota 

unless it has an energy efficiency ratio 

of at least 7.0 Btu per watt-hour. 

Additionally, Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd. 8 

specifies a minimum energy effiCiency 

ratio of 7.8 Btu per watt-hour for all 

room air conditioners installed in new 

construction or substantial 

renovation. mr ' 

Central Air Conditioners. Minn. Slat. 

116J-19 subd. 8 specifies a minimum 

energy efficiency ratio of 7.8 Btu per 

watt-hour for all central air conditioners 

installed in new constructwn or substantial renovation. m,. 

Furnaces. Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd. 8 

specifies a minimum steacly state 

combustion efficiency of 74 percent of 

all furnaces and low pressure steam and 

hot water boilers installed in new 

construction or substantial renovation. 

except for gravity furnaces. for which 

the minimum steady state combustion 

efficiency is 69 percent. 116 Additionally. 

Minn. Stat. 116}-19 subd. 14 prohibits 

the sale and installation of any new gasfired fwnace equipped with a 

continuously burning pilot light. 

2. Significant State Interest 

Minnesota's discussion focuses ~n two major areas: that the State has a 

history of a commitment to energy 

efficient appliances as one component 

of its overan energy po!icy;_and that 

U>The petition also slated that electric storage 

water heatl!fll of a capacity greater than 1200 

gallon ....... required to IlIw .. it minimum ofR-10 

insulation. Electric water healen WIth storage 

capacities grealer than 120 gallons are not covered 

by the DOE test procedure for water heatel'll, 

Consequently. they are not covered by the Federal 

.tandard for water !Haters. Therefore. this 

requirmenl i. not aubject to preemption by the 

Federal Slandard. 

·"Minnesota'. water beater standards ref~rence 

the DOE water heater lest procedure. 

us Minnesota'S' room air condition ... standard 

reference. the OOE room iii, conditioner tesl 

procedure. 

.... Minnesota's central air conditioner standard 

references the DOE cemrai air conditiofter test 

procedur&. 

"'Minnesota's furnace stancktrd. reference Ihe 

DOl! fumace test procedure. 

there are signtficant energy savings that 

result from establishing minimum energy 

efficiency revels for these covered 

appli&nces. The petition maintainl! that 

as an energy-poor lI1ate. Minnel!ota is 

and half been especially vulnerable to 

the rapid increB1les in fossil fuel costs. 

and to the pcnibl1ity of shortages. Since 

the State is literally at the end of the 

naturafgas and oil distribution system. 

major concerns were evident in the 

19708 regarding t~ impact lIrn,rtages 

would have on the industrial! 

commercial network and the economy 

as a whole. Thus. major pieces of 

legislation were adopted to make 

Minnesota more energy efficient. to 

increase the use of alternative energy 

sources, and to limit the impact of rising 

energy costs. especially on low income 

families. According to the petition. that 

the legislative process has resulted in 

the development of standards is a de 

facto statement of the significance of 

standards to the State. 

1'lM? petition states that Minnesota has 

determined that the energy savings from 

each of its appliance standards is 

significant. As indicated in the filing, 

Minnesota's energy policy is designed to 

use energy as cost-effectively as 

possible. In economic terms. those 

programs or State policies that result in 

energy savings with a positive net 

present value are determined to be of 

significant benefit to the State. That is. if 

the energy cost savings resulting from a 

standard outweigh the cost of 

implementing that standard. then the 

standanf is appropriate and Minnesota's 

citiz.ens will benefit. For each standard. 

Minnesota includes an analysis 

indicating the costs. seving! and 

calculation of net present value resulting 

from the implementation of that 

standard. . The petitioner concludes that the net 

cost sevings from the Minnesota State 

Building Code Efficiency for water 

heaters over the life of units purchased 

in 19&1 is $16.4 million; 111 the net cost 

savings from the Minnesota minimum 

energy efficiency ratio of 7.0 Btu per 

watt-hour for room air conditioners sold 

in 1982 is $362.106: lUI the savings from 

... Net present value of Sl6.38&S13 saved was 

computl!<! by ~innesota using the following 

a.sumptions: 45,500 units of electric water he. t~rs 

.. ere !IOld in Minne.ota in 198'1: Ihe average annual 

energy coat savings per waler heater is SSl.92: the 

average lifetime of an electric water heater ;5 13 

yeara: electricity costa will increase at the nominal 

rate of 5.5 percent per year; consumer credit loans 

are available 8113 percent per year; and the 

increased cost of a wlrter heater resuili:lg from 

standards are £'9.38. This study was supported by 

data developed by Northern States Power 

Company. 

.lI Net pre.ent value of $362.106 saved was 

computed using tbe follOwing assumptions: 16,535 

Contlnu~d 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32971 

the Minnesota standard prohibiting. 

furnace pilot lights sold in 1982 is $6.3 

million; 119 and the net cost savings from 

Minnesota Slate Building Code 

standar.js for central air conclltioners 

sold in 982 is $743.538. 120 

The petitioner asserts that the 

estimates of energy savings from the 

ban on pilot lights is very conservative 

since much of the fuel consumed is 

discounted as the pilots produce "useful 

heat" for the dwelling. Since most 

furnaces in Minnesota are located in 

unconditioned or semi-conditioned 

spaces. the heat from the pilot lights is 

completely wasted. Also. pilot lights in 

furnaces produce heat during summer months. actually contributing to the air 

conditioning load. Because these pilot 

lights are unvented. they also contribute 

to air pollution of the conditioned space. 

leading to greater "'entilation needs. It is 

units of room air condilioners were &Old in 

Minnesota in 1982: OW.S percent of the 16.535 u'!ita or 

6.6'<17 units would have an average energy effICiency 

Nltlo of 6.6 Btu per walt·hour if there was no Minnesota minimum energy efficiency ratio of 7.0 

Btu per walt·hour: the units sold would be alleasl 

6.1 percent more efficient. representing the 

percentage increase from an enelllY effIciency ratio 

of 6.6 to i.O Btu per wall·hour: the national average 

consumption of a room air conditioner i. 1161 

kllowatt·hours per year: the average residential 

electricity price was $0.0576 per kllowatt·hour In 

1002: electricity costs will increase al the nominal fa te of 5.5 percenl per year: COnBumer credit loans· ate available 8t13 percent per year: the averagp. life 

of 8 room air conditioner is 15 years: and the 

im:rease in coat due to the Incresoe In energy 

efficiency ratio by 6.1 percent is $1S.oo. 

II> Net pl'f'sent value of $6.252,999 saved was 

computed by Minnesota usin{! the foUowing 

assumptions: 29.953 unit. of gas forced air fumuces were sold In Minnesota in 1982: 76.3 percent of.lhe 

29.953 units or Z2.654 units would have been aold 

with pilot lights if there were no Slate standard 

against pilot lights; a pilot consumes 5.06 mcf of gRS 

per year more than the same furnace without a pilot 

light; the price of natural gas in Minnesota was $5.02 

ppr mef in 1982: the average lifetime of a furnace i. 

estimated to be 23 years: Ihe average nominal 

,"nation rate of natural gaa used by reSidences i. 8.56 percent per year: consumer credit loan. are 

ubtainable at the nominal rate of 13 percent per 

y"sr: and the additional purchaae cost of an dppHance with an intermittenl ignition device (lID) 

,uOs!iluted for a pilot light is $100. 

I"~el present value oiS743.536 &lived Was 

compl1ted by Minnesota using the following 

assumptions: an average of 17.500 units of central 

air conditioners with an average rated capacity of 

30.000 Btu per hour were sold in 1981 aDd 1982: the 

a.erage enerlll' efficiency ratio of the units sold 

would be 7.8 Btu per watt·hour resultinR from the 

ene!'!!)' conservation provisions of the Slate Building 

Code: that thi. represents 8 3.75 percent 

impro""ment over unit. that would have been sold . wi Ihout standards average central air conditioner 

usage i. 450 hours per year equivalent of fuU 

,,\ arallP-d capacity: the sa\'in~s in 1982 from the 

central air conditionin~ unit. afrer-Ied by the Stule 

Code i. equivalent 10 2.S!l6.534 kilowatt·hour: the cn~1 of electricity in 1982 was $1:1.0576 per kilowatt· 

hour: Ih .. average life of a central air conditioner is 

12 yeH": .. Ipclrieity COSio will inc,.., •• e at the 

nominal rate of 5.5 percent per year: coo.umer 

credit loans are available &t13 percent per y"ar: 

.. nd the increase in cos's due 10 the increa ... in ERR 

by 3.7'5 percent i. $25.00. 

totally unclear then. whether there is 

any useful contribution to residential 

space heating when increased 

,ventilation is needed to maintain indoor 

air quality. 

The petitioner points out that the 

products of combustion from pilot lights 

(and other unvented gas use) are 

beginning to be understood to hav.e 

negative health effects. such as increased respiratory ailments and 

reduced lung capacity among children. 

These effects can be expected to be 

exacerbated in the future as both new and existing homes are made tighter, 

reducing air exchange rates from 2 to 3 

to less than If.t an air change per hour. In 

a very tight home. health considerations 

alone may be sufficient to warrant 

pilotless ignition. At the very least. 

however. the unquantified health" 

benefits resulting from eliminating pilot 

lights must be considered to add to the 

need to sustain the current ban which 

exists in Minnesota. 

3. Additional Information 

According to the petition. a preemption of Minnesota's standards by 

Federal rule will have negative impact on those manufacturers who re-tooled 

their assembly lines to produce more 

efficient appliances. The Minnesota 

Department of Energy and Economic 

Development has never received any 

complaint8 or notices of hardship by 

manufacturers of these products in 

complying with the Slate standards. 

However. to eliminate these minimal 

requirements would put those 

manufacturer8 who did re-tool at a 

competitive disadvantage with 

competitors who simply abandoned the 

Minnesota (and some other states) 

market. Those negative economic 

impacts should also be weighed in the 

decision to maintain Minnesota's 

standards. 

Although Minnesota maintains that 

these appliance standards are necessary 

and reasonable on the merits of energy 

and dollars saved to the State. 

irrespective of that facl Minnesota 

believes the Federal suppression of 

State energy efficiency standards is an 

unwarranted intrusion on a State's right 

to govern its own affairs. Minnesota 

states that this intrusion is made even more onerous by the fact that DOE· 

chose to require a "no standard" 

standard which directly contravenes 

Minnesota's own interest. instead of a Federal efficiency standard which at 

least would have been supportive of the 

State's interests. 

The petitioner concludes that there 

have been no complaints registered with 

the State concerning negative impacts 

on interstate commerce and that the 

State', interests clearly outweigh any 

burden on interstate commerce. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Minnesota', 

Petition in accordance with the 

requirements of 8ection 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on this analysis. DOE has determined 

that Minnesota has provided prima facie 

evidence showing that Minn. Stat. 

116J.19 subdivisions 8. 13. and 14 are more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces: are justified by a significant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose and undue 

burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending ~ 430.33 exempting Minn. 

Stat. 116J.19 subdivisions 8. 13, and 14 as they pertain to water heaters. room air 

conditioners, central air conditioners 

and furnaces from the preemptive 

provision8 of section 327(a)(2) of the 

Act. 

WASHINGTON (WA029). The 

petition submitted by Washington seeks 

a rule exempting from Federal 

preemption sections 411(c). 411(e). 

420(a). and 602(a) of the Washington 

State Energy Code which was enacted 

by section 51-12 of the Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC). as 

amended July 20. 1983, as they pertain to 

water heaters. room air conditioners, 

central air conditioners. and furnaces. 121 

The Washington State Energy Code is 

based on ASHRAE Standard 90-75. It 

provides for three methods for 

compliance: (1) A component 

performance approach; (2) a system 

analysis approach; and (3) a prescriptive 

approach. Minimum energy efficiency 

standards are specified in the 

component performance approach 

(Section 400 of the Code) and inthe 

prescriptive requirement approach 

(Section 600 of the Code). 

111 The petition also requests a rule exempting 

from Federal preemption minimum energy efficiency 

standards pertaining to heat pumps. and home 

heating equipment (not inclucLng furnaces). Th~se 

products are not considered in this rulemaking 

because the AUl!uSI 1983 rule for the six products 

reserved 8 standards decision for heat pumps. and 

home heating equipmenl (not including fumacesl. 

The petition alan reque.ls a rule exempting from 

Federal preemption energy eflkiency standard. 

pertaining to the following """'gories of central .,r 

conditioning units: central air conditioneN wIth. 

capacity greater than 65.000 Btu per hour. heat 

o""raled Hir conditioning units: and water ehilleN. 

These air conditioning units are not considered in 

this rulemaking bl'C"use lhpy are not covered 

products under the Departmenr. appliance 

program. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32972 Federal Register I Vol; 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 42O(a} of the 

State Energy Code prohibits the 

installation of gas- and oil-fired storage 

water heaters and electric storage water 

heaters that do not meet the . 

requirements of ASHRAE Standard 90-

75. 122 

Room Air C>nditioners and Centroi 

Air c>ndiIJoners. Sections 411(e) and 

602(a) of the State Energy Code prohibit 

the installation of any room or central 

air conditioner under a capacity of 

65.000 Btu per hour with an energy . 

efficiency ratio of less than 6.8 Btu per 

watt·hour. l:!3 

Furnaces. Sections 411(c} and 602(a) 

of Washington's law prohibits the 

installation of any gas· or oil-fired 

furnace with a minimum combustion 

efficiency of less than 75 percent 12. 

Section 411(c) of Washington's law also 

requires all gas- and oil-fired furnaces to 

be equipped with approved automatic 

dampers in cases where conditioned air 

is used for combustion. Section 602(a) of 

Washington's law requires that all gas· 

and oil-fired furnaces are to be equipped 

with approved automatic dampers .. 

.2. Significant State fnterest 

The petitioner states that its law has 

been in effect since 1980 and that the 

State Energy Code. 51-12 WAC, is 

actively enforced by local jurisdictions 

representing about 87 percent of the 

State's population. The petitioner stat6$ 

that Congress also has recognized the 

special need of the Northwest states to 

conserve energy by the Pacific . 

. Northwest Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act (Pub. 1.. 95-501). In 

\ response to this law. the Northwest 

Power Planning Council has developed 

Model Conservation Standards (MCS) to 

be adopted and enforced by the 

Northwest States (including 

Washington) by January 1. 1986. The 

Council has determined that the 

minimum energy efficiency standards in 

the MCS are cost effective on a regional 

level and are economically feasible for 

consumers. 

3. Additional Information 

The petitioner states that during the 

past four years. consumers have 

benefited from the Slate regulations by 

having lower energy costs. The 

"'Washington's water heater standards 

reference the DOE water heater tesl procedure. 

... Washington', room air conditioner standard 

rel'erences the A.'l/SI Standard Z234.1-72 test 

method which DOE adopted a. i~ test procedunr 

for room air conditioner5. Wa,hington·. ce1IItal air 

conditioner standard references DOE central air 

conditioner test procedure. 

... Washington's fuma"" .tandard& reference the 

DOE furnace test procedure. 

petitioner maintains that the State , regulation. are more stringent than tbe 

Federal cmes, that Washing:ton intends 

to adopt more stringent State regulations 

(Model Conservation Standards) in 

respome to the Pacific Northwest 

Electric Power Planning and 

Conservation Act, and that the current 

State regulations have operated without 

placing an undue burden on-iDterstate 

commerce. , '. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Washingon's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based 

on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that Washington hal provided prima 

facie evidence showing that sections 

411(c}, 411(e). 420{a} and 602(a) of the 

Washington State Energy Code. enacted 

by section 51-12 of the Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC). as 

amended July ZOo 1983. are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; are 

justified by a significant State interest: 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a 

rule amending § 430.33 exempting 

sections 411(c). 411(e}. 420(a}. and 602(a) 

of the Washington State Energy Code. 

enacted by section 51-12 of the 

Washington Administrative Code 

(WAG). as amended July ZOo 1983. from 

the preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2) of the Act . 

KANSAS (1(5030). The petition 

submitted by Kansas seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

Orders in Kansas Corporation 

Commission Docket No. 110.776-U 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that took effect on November 1. 1979. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Central Air C<Jnditioners. The Kansas 

Corporation Commission (KCG) is ilie 

State regulatory body statutorily 

mandated to supervise and control the 

public utilities and cooperatives doing 

business in Kansas. Pursuant to its 

authority. the KCC requires that all 

natural gas and electric utilities subject 

to the jurisdiction of the KCC and all 

municipally owned, non.jurisdictional 

natural gas and electric utilities shall 

not make conections or attachments to 

newly constructed residential dwellings 

and newly constructed commercial 

buildings unless certain requirements 

pertaining to the energy use of such 

dwellings and buildings are met. Sub· 

paragraph (e) of paragraph No.5 of the 

Orders in KCC Docket No. 11O,77t3-U I"" 

contains the requirement that the 

seasonal energy efficiency retio of all air 

conditioners of 65.000 Btu per hour 

capacity or lees shall not be Jess than.I..O 

Btu per watt-hour.-

. 2. Silnifu::ant State Interes.t 

The J(CC. in proposing its order in 

1977. found that 66 percent of the 

electricity used in Kansas was 

generated by the use of natural gas and 

oil. Further. the reliance on the use of 

natural ges for home heating and for 

electricity generation. at a time of short 

supply. lent urgency to enacting 

conservation measures such as the 

energy efficiency standards for air 

conditioning units. The KCC notes that 

while the use of natural gas to produce 

electricity dropped from 66 percent of 

total electricity generated in 1977. to Z2 

percent in 1982. the actual amount of gas 

consumed in production of electricity in 

1982 was 47 percent of 1977 levels of 

consumption. This fact. coupled with the 

increase in the price of natural gas from 

$.99 per cf in 1977 to $2.38 per cf in 1982., 

indicates to the KCC that Kansas is still 

heavily dependent upon natural gas in 

the production of electricity and the 

need for conservation measures is just 

sa important in 1984 as it was in 1977. 

3. Additional Information 

Kansas stated that several companies 

already manufacture central air 

conditioners that comply with the State 

standards. Further. since several States 

already have standards. Kansas 

contended that its State standard does 

not unduly burden interstate commerce. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Kansas's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 327(b](3) of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Kansas has 

provided prima facie evidence showing 

... The language of the Order in KGG Docket No. 

l1o.716-U implies thel the energy efficiency 

requirement extends to room air conditioners as 

well .a central air conditio"" .... since it u ...... the 

term "all installed air conditione .... " of 65.000 Btu 

per hour capacity or.less. However, the petition 

itself refers 10 exempting the KeG rule. for central 

air conditioners only. No mention ia made of room 

air conditioners. OOE baa. therefore. addressed this 

petition aa It applies to central air condilionen; only. 

Additionally. the KCC requires a minimum energy 

efficiency retia or 7.S Btu per wau-hour for air 

conditioners of greater than 65.000 Btu per hour 

capacity. However. this requirement is not subject 

to preemption by DOE'. standard for central air 

conditioners aince these units are not covered 

products uDder the Departmenr. appliance 

pro8l'aDI. 

- KaIl88ll' central air condltioner atandard. 

reference the DOE central air conditloaar test 

procedure. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32973 

that the Orders in Kansas Corporation 

Commission Docket No. 11.0776-U 

concerning seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio are more stringent than DOE's rule 

for central air conditioners. is justified 

by a significant State interest and does 

not appear to impose an undue burden 

on interstate commerce. Accordingly. 

DOE proposes to issue a rule amending 

§ 430.33 exempting the Orders in Kansas 

Corporation Commission Docket No. 

110.776-U from the preemptive 

provisions of section 327{a)(2) of the 

Act. _ 

HAWAII (Hl031). The petition 

submitted hy Hawaii s~ks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption 

Article Eight of the Uniform Building 

Code. City and County of Honolulu. and 

equivalent chapters of the Uniform 

Building Codes of Hawaii and Kauai 

Counties. as they pertain to water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces. These 

codes are based on the ASHARAE 

Standlard 90-75. Hawaii also seeks a 

rule exempting Chapter 196-5 of the 

Hawaii Revised Statutes.1n 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Section 16-8.08(e) of 

the Code specifies a maximum standby 

loss of 4.0 watts per square fool of ta.nlc 

surface area for electric storage water 

heaters. Section 16-8.08(e) also specifies 

that gas- and oil-fired storage water 

heaters shall have a minimum recovery 

efficiency of 75 percent and a maximum 

standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3+87/V. expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy. where 

V equals the volume of the water heater 

in gallons. ItS 

Room Air Conditioners and Centroi 

Air Conditioners. Section 16-8.04(b)(1) 

of the Code specifies a minimum energy 

efficiency ratio of 8.1 Btu per watt-hour 

for room air conditioners and central air 

conditioners and central air 

conditioners. In 

... Hawaii is as.umed also to requesl an 

exemption for Chapler llJ6-<; of the Hawaii Revised 

Statutes prohibitin8 the sale and the instailation of 

gas fW'lUlces with pilot lights. Although Hawaii did 

nOI speCifically mention thi. regulation in ita 

petition. 8 copy of Ihe regulation was include 8S a 

appendix to the petition. DOE in therefore assuming 

that it i. Hawaii's inlent to seek exemption from 

preemption for chapler 196-5 01 the Hawaii ReVised 

Stalutes. 

... Hawaii's waler healer standards reference the 

ANSI Standard C72.1-72 le.1 method and the ANSI 

Slandard Z2l.1o.3-74 teat method. DOE haa 

reviewed these lesl method. aod finds thaI they 

differ from Ihe DOE waler healer lest procedure. 

The DepaMment i8 treating these lesl methods a. an 

inlegral paM of Hawaii'. water heater 81apdardslor 

which exemption from preemption i, belnll sought. 

... Hawaii's room air conditioner stundard 

references the ANSI Standard Z2M.1-72 lest· 

method which DOE adopted aa ila test procedure 

for room air cooditioners. Hawaii's central air 

conditioner standard reference. the ARl Standard 

Furnaces. Section 16-8.04(b){5} of the 

Code specifies a minimum combustion 

efficiency of 75 percent at maximum 

rated output for gas- and oil· fired 

furnaces. 1:10 Chapter 196-5 of the Hawaii 

Revised Statutes prohibits the sale snd 

installation of gas furnaces with pilot 

lights. 

2. Significant State Interest 

In its petition. Hawaii states that it is 

90 percent dependent aD imported oil 

which costs $1.5 billion dollars each 

year. Without appliance standards. 

Hawaii believes that cheap. inefficient 

applicances would be purchased by 

those unaware of the concept of 

lifecycle costing; by short-Sighted 

developers; and by others who would 

profit by holding down initial costs and 

allowing others to cope with the 

resulting higher electricity bills. ~" 

Preemption of appliance standards 

would seriously undermine the 

substantial progress that Hawaii has 

made in redUcing the per-capita 

consumption of electricity. 

3. Additional Information 

Hawaii contends that it applicance 

standards do not place an undue burden 

on appliance manufacturers because its 

applicance standards are based on the 

ASHRAE Standard 90-75. The appliance 

industry itself was instrumental in 

formulating the ASHRAE Standard 90-

75. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reVlewea Hawaii's petition 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 237(b}(3} of the Act and § 430.47 

of the regulation. Based on its analysis. 

DOE has determined that Hawaii has 

provided prima facie evidence shOwing 

the Article Eight of the Uniform Building 

Code. City and County of Honolulu and 

the equivalent chapters of the Uniform 

Building Codes of Hawaii and Kauai 

Countries. and Chapter 196-5 of the 

Hawaii Revised Statutes. are more 

stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. central eir conditioners. room air conditioners and furnaces; are 

21!)-75 teat method. DOE has l'I!'Viewed this taat 

mathod and finds that it differs from the DOE 

central air cooditioner te.t procedure. The 

Department i. lreating Ih""" t",,1 math .. " •• s an 

inlegral part of Hawaii'. room air conditioner and 

central air conditioner standard. for which 

exemption from preemption i. beill8 lOughL 

"·Hawair. furnace atandarda relerence the ANSI 

Standard Z21.l3-14 test method. the ANSI Standard 

Z21.47-71 teat method, the ANSI Standard 91.1-72 

lesl method and the HI Standard 8.6 tM! method. 

DOE haa reviewed these test methode and finds 

that they differ from the DOE furnace llIat 

procedure. The Department i. treatill8 these te.t method. a. an integral part or Hawaii's furnace 

standard, for whlch exemption from preemption ia 

beill8 lIOU8ht. 

justified by a significant State interest; 

and do not appear to impose an undue 

burden on interstate commerce. 

Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a 

rule I mending § 430.33 exempting 

Article Eight of the Unifonn Building 

Code. City and County of Honolulu and 

the equivalent chapters of the Uniform 

Building Codes of Hawaii and Kauai 

Counties. and Chapter 196-5 of the 

Hawaii Revised Statutes. from the 

preemptive provisions of section 

327(a)(2) of the Act. 

TENNESSEE {TN032}. The petition 

submitted by Tennessee seeks a rule 

exempting from Federal preemption the 

Tennessee Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. adopted in the Tennessee 

Code Annotated Section 13-19-101 

through 13-19-107. Chapter 19. as it 

pertains to water heaters. room air 

conditioners. central air conditioners 

and furnaces. m. The Tennessee Code 

incorporates three alternative 

approaches for compliance: A systems 

analysis approach. a component 

performance design approach and an 

acceptable practice approach applicable 

to conventional residential buildings 

and other small buildings which meet 

certain requirements. The provisions of 

the latter two approaches incorporate 

minimum energy efficiency requirements 

for space heating and cooling and water 

heating equipment based on ASHRAE 

-Standard 90-75. 

1. State Standard Levels 

Water Heaters. Sections 504.2(a) and 

604.1(a) of the Tennessee Code For 

Energy Conservation. Tennessee Code 

Annotated Section 13-19-101. provide 

that electric storage water heaters shall 

have a standby loss not exceeding 4.0 

watts per square foot of tank surface 

area and that gas- and oil-fired storage 

water heaters shall have recovery 

efficiency not less than 75 percent and a 

standby loss not exceeding the quantity 

of 2.3 + 87/V. expressed in percent per 

hour of the stored thermal energy, where 

V equals rated volume of the water 

heater in gallons. 1ft 

lSI The petition requests exemption for positive 

displacement refrigerant compre.IO .... Positive 

displacement refrigerant comp",",,", are not considered in this rulemaking because they are not covered producta under the Department'. 

appUcanca program. 

IUTennessee's waler heater standard. reference 

the ANSI Standard C72.1-72 teat method and the 

ANSI Standard Z2l.1().3..74 test method. DOE has 

reviewed theae leat methods alld find. that they 

differ from the DOE water healer leo' procedure. 

The Department ia treating these test method ••• an integral paM of Tennessee', water healer standards 

for ",liich exemption from preemption ia beill8 

lOught. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32974 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

Room Air Conditioners and Central 

/iir Conditioner. Sections 503.4(e) and 

603.2(a) of the Tennessee Code for 

Energy Conservation. Tennessee Code 

Annotated Section 13-19-101. prov'de 

·that room air conditioners and cenlral 

air conditioners with cooling capacities 

of 65.000 Btu per hour or less shall have 

an efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu 

per watt-hout. t3:1 

Furnaces. Sections S03.4(C) and 

603.2(b) of the Tennessee Code for 

F..nergy Conservation. Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 13-19-101, provide 

that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall 

have a combustion efficency not less 

than 75 percent at maximum rated 

output. t34 

2. Significant State Interest 

Tennessee believes that no one's 

interest will be served, neither public. 

by preempting the State's appliance 

standards. 

3. Additional Information 

Tennessee contends that its appliance 

standards are coterminous with the 

standards by which the building 

industry works. 

4. Proposed Determination 

DOE has reviewed Tennessee's 

petition in accordance with the 

requirements of section 327(b){3) of the 

Act and § 430.47 of the regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined 

that Tennessee has provided prima facie 

evidence showing that sections 503.4 (cl 

and (e), 504.2(a). 603.2 (a) and (b). and . 

604.1(a) of the Tennessee Code for 

Energy Conservation in New Building 

Construction. Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 13-19-101 through 

13-19-107. Chapter 19. are more stringent than DOE's rule for water 

heaters. room air conditioners. central 

air conditioners and furnaces; and are justified by a significant Sta te interest. 

DOE has determined that they do not 

"'Tennessee's room air conditioner standard 

references the ANSl Standard ZZ34.1-72 test 

melhod which DOE adopled as its lest procedure 

for rooin air conditioners. Tennessee'. central air 

conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 

210-75 lest method. DOE has reviewed this test 

method and finds Ihat it differs from the DOE 

central air conditoner test procedure. The 

Department is treating these test methods a8 an 

IDle81'sl part of Tenne •• ee·, room air conditioner 

Mnd centr&l air conditioner standards for which 

"xemption from preemption i. being sought. 

'''Tennessee's furnace standards reference Ihe 

ANSI Standard Z21.13-74 lest method. the ANSI 

Standard Z21.47-71 leal melhod. the ANSI Siandard 

91.1-72 lesl melhod and Ihe HI Siandard S.6 lest 

m"lhod. DOE has reviewed these lesl methods and 

finds that they diff"r from the DOE furnace test 

procedure. The Department ia trealing these tesl 

methocis as an integral part of Tenne •• ""·. furnace 

st~nd"rds (or which exemption from pret:mplion ia 

being soughL 

appear to impose an undue burden on 

interestate commerce. Accordingly. DOE 

proposed to issue a rule amending 

section 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2 (a) and 

(b). and 604.1(a) of the Tennessee Code 

for Energy Conservation in New 

Building Construction. Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 13-19-101 through 

13-19-107. Chapter 19. from the 

preemptive provisions of section 327(a) 

(2) of the Act. . 

m. Environmental, Regulatory imPact. 

and Small Entity Impact Reviews 

o. Environmental Review 

In each case where DOE is requested 

to approve State standards. DOE 

conducts a National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPAl review on a case-bycase basis. Currently. the 26 Slates have 

petitioned DOE regarding regulations;' 

concerning the energy use or efficiency 

of one or more of the products covered 

by the December 22. 1982 final rule or the August 30. 1983 final rule. Granting 

the petitions received from these States 

will mean that these regulations will 

remain in effect. The D.epartment's 

proposed rule to grant these petitions 

will result in no change in the 

environmental status quo of the 26 

States, and therefore. will clearly have 

no signficant environmental impact. No 

environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is 

required. 

It should also be noted that the 

Department has prepared and issued an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/ 

EA-D113) on the impact of setting and 

implementing energy efficiency 

standards for all 13 types of consumer products identified In Section 322(a)(1)-

(13) of the Act. A Finding of No 

Significant Impact and Notice of 

Availability of that E4\ were published 

with the June 30, 1980. proposed rule for 

minimum energy efficiency standards 

for eight of the products (45 FR 44088). 

Copies of that EA may be obtained from 

the address indicated at the beginning of 

this notice. 

b. Regulatory Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing analysis of the 

effect of the proposed actions. DOE has 

concluded that the rules are not "major 

rules" for purposes of Executive Order 

12291 because they will not result in: (1) 

An annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; (2) a major increase in 

costs or prices for consumers. individual 

industries. Federal. State. or local 

government agencies. or geographic 

regions; or (3) significa!!t adverse effects 

pn competition. employment. 

investment. productivity. innovation. or on the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export 

markets. Therefore. in accordance with 

section 3(cj{3) of the Executive Order. 

which applies to rul~s other than major 

rules. the proposed rules were submitted 

100MB for review without a regulatory 

impact analysis. 

c. Small Entity Impact Review 

In light of the foregoing. the 

Department has d.etermined and hereby 

certifies pursuant to section 605(b} of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act that the 

proposals. if promulgated. will not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities." 

The impacts on small businesses wpich 

are appliance manufacturers were assessed very closely together with 

other relevant factors in conducting 

DOE's analysis of the State petitions. 

For purposes of assessing these impacts. 

the term "small business" was defined 

in consultation with the Small Business 

Administration. 

IV. Public Comment Procedures 

o. Participation in Rulemakings 

DOE encourages the maximum level 

of public participation in these 

rulemakings. 

Individual consumers. representatives 

of consumer groups, manufacturers' 

associations. States or other 

governmental entities. utilities. retailers. 

distributors. manufacturers. and others 

are urged to submit written statements on the proposals. The Department also 

encourages interested persons to 

participate in the public hearings to be 

held in New York. New York; Chicago. 

Illinois; Atlanta. Georgia: Dallas. Texas: 

San Francisco, California: and 

Washington. D.C .• at the times and 

places indicated at the beginning of this 

notice. 

Copies of each State's notice of intent 

and petition are available for review in 

the DOE Freedom of Information 

Reading Room. Interested persons may 

obtain copies of any of these documents 

by writing 10 the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room at the 

address specified at the beginning of 

this notice. Such persons are advised to 

contact the DOE Freedom of Information 

Reading Room in advance of such 

requests to determine if there will be 

any charges associated with satisfying 

their request. 

DOE has established a comment 

period of 90 days following publication 

of this notice. for persons to submit 

written comments on these proposals. 

All written comments and transcripts of 

all public hearings will be available for 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1964 I Proposed Rules 32975 

review in the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room, Interested 

persons may obtain copies of any of 

these documents by writing to the DOE 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

at the address specified at the beginning 

of this notice. Such persons are advised 

to contact the DOE Freedom of 

Information Reading Room in advance 

of such requests to determine if there 

will be any charges associated with 

satisfying their request. Also, persons 

interested in obtaining copies of the 

-transcripts from any or all of the public 

hearings have the option of purchasing 

them directly from the transcribing 

reporter for each public hearing. The 

identify of the transcribing reporter for 

each public hearing may be determined 

by contacting the person in the DOE 

Conservation and Renewable Energy 

Office of Hearings and Dockets whose 

address. and telephone number appear 

at the beginning of this notice. 

b. Written Comment Procedures 

Interested persons are invited to _ 

participate in this proceeding by 

submitting written data. views or arguments with respect to the subjects 

set forth in this notice. Instructions for 

submitting written comments are set 

forth at the beginning of this notice and 

below. Comments for each petition 

should be addressed separately and 

comments on each product should be 

discussed separately within each 

commentary. Comments on each 

petition should be labeled both on the 

envelope and on the documents 

"Appliances (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM 

[appropriate State code])". General 

comments, i.e .• those which are applicable to DOE's consideration of all 

State petitions. should be addressed 

separately and should be labeled both on the envelope and on the documents 

"Appliance (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM)". 

All written comments must he received 

by the date specifii;!d at the beginning of 

this notice in order to insure full 

consideration. Ten (10) copies are requested to be submitted. however. this 

is not a requirement for the submission or written comments. Ten copies are requested to permit timely review of the 

comments received on this matter. All 

comments received by the date specified 

at the beginning of this notice and other 

relevant information will be considered 

by DOE before final action is taken on 

the proposed rules. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 

1004.11, any person submitting 

information or data which is believed to 

be confidential and exempt by law from 

public disclosure. should submit 1:lne 

complete copy of the document, and if 

possible. 10 copies from which the 

information believed to he confidential 

has been deleted. DOE will make its own determination with regard to the 

confidential status of the information or 

data and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE. when 

evaluating requests for confidentiality 

include: (1) A description of the item: (2) an indication as to whether and why 

such items of information have been 

treated by the submitting party as confidential within the industry; (3) 

whether the information is generally 

known or available from other sources; 

(4) whether the information has 

previously been made available to 

others without obligation concerning its 

confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 

personal competitives injury which 

would result from public discloSlll'e; [6) 

an indication as to when such 

information might lose its confidential 

character due to the passage of time; 

and (7) whether disclosure of the 

information would be in the public 

interest. 

c, Public Hearings 

1. Procedure for Submitting Requests 

to Speak. In order to have the benefit of a broad range of public viewpoints in 

these rulemakings. DOE will hold six 

public hearings. Listed at the beginning 

of this notice are the dates. addresses. 

and DOE contacts for these hearings. 

Any person who has an interest in these 

proceedings. or who is a representative 

of a group or class of persons having an interest. may submit a written request 

for an opportunity to make ~ oral 

presentation at the public hearing. Such 

requests should be labeled both on the 

letter and the envelope. "Appliances: 

Petitions for Exemption from Preemption 

of State Efficiency Standards (Docket 

No. CE-CP-SPRM)" and should be sent 

to the proper address and must be 

received by the time specified at the 

beginning of this notice. 

The person making the request should 

briefly describe the interest concerned 

and give a telephone number where he or she may be contacted. Each person 

requesting an opportunity to speak 

should give a concise summary of the 

proposed oral presentation. 

2. Selection of Speakers. DOE reserves the right to select the persons 

to be heard at these hearings. and to 

schedule the respective presentations. 

DOE will endeavor to afford all persons 

who request to speak an opportunity to 

be heard. However, in the event that more persons request to speak at a particular hearing than time permits to 

be heard. DOE may refuse some persons an opportunity to make a scheduled 

presentation. (DOE may. for example. 

select only one person to speak on behalf of a given group or organization 

for which two or more representatives 

have requested to speak.) The length 

each presentation will be limited to 20 

minutes. Scheduled speakers will be so notified by DOE by the date specified at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Speakers are requested to submit 10 

copies of their statement by the date 

given at the beginning of this notice; 

however, this is not a requirement for 

making an oral presentation at a hearing. Ten copies are requested to be 

submitted in advance of the hearings in 

order that they may be distributed to the 

DOE officials who will be serving on the 

panel at the hearings for review prior to 

the hearing itself and so that they may 

be made available to persons attending 

the hearing. In the event any person 

Wishing to testify cannot meet this 

requirement, alternative arrangements 

can be made in advance with the Office 

of Hearings and Dockets by so indicating in the letter requesting to 

make an oral presentation. 

3. Conduct of Hearing. A DOE official 

will be designated to preside at each 

hearing. The hearings will not be 

judicial or evidentiary-type hearings, but 

will be conducted in accordance with 5 

U.S.C. 553 and Section 336(a)(1) of the 

Act. Each day. a1 the conclusion of all 

initial oral stalments. each person who 

has made an oral statement will be 

given the opportunity to make'a rebuttal 

statement. subject to time limitations. 

The rebuttal statements will be given in 

the order in which the initial statements 

were made. The official conducting the 

hearing will accept additional comments 

or questions from those attending, as time permits, Any interested person may 

submit to the presiding official written 

questions to be asked of any person 

making a statement at the hearing. The 

presiding official will determine whether 

the question is relevant and whether 

time limitations pennit it to be presented 

for answer. 

Any further procedural rules regarding 

proper conduct of the hearing will be 

announced by the presiding official. 

4. Consolidation of Hearings. DOE 

may consolidate any or all of the public 

hearings if DOE does not receive 

sufficient interest concerning a 

particular hearing. In that event, DOE 

will contact each speaker and provide 

that person the opportunity to present 

testimony at any of the other hearings. 

However, DOE will not provide 

transportation or lodging for such 

speakers to appear at a hearing. DOE 

will include for the record at one of the 

other hearings a copy of the statement 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32976 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

of any person who requested to speak.at 

a hearing that was cancelled by DOE. 

Oral views, data and arguments may 

be presented at any of the public 

hearings. The length of each 

• presentation is limited to 20 minutes. 

The hearings will begin at 9 a.m., and 

will be held at the following locations: 

Public Hearing, New York. New York. 

A public hearing will be held in New 

York City on October 2. 1984; requests to 

speak must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m., 

September 18, 1984; speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m .. September 20. 1984: 

ten copies of each speaker's statement 

are requested: however, at least one 

copy must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m., 

September 28. 1984. 

Public Hearing: New York. New York. 

Jacob }avits Federal Building. 26 Federal 

Plaza. Room 305B New York. NY 10278. 

Public Hearing, Chicago, IlJinois. A 

public hearing will be held in Chicago. 

Illinois. on October 4, 1984: requests to 

speak must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .• 

September 18. 1984: speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m., September 20. 1984; 

ten copies of each speaker's statement 

are requested: however. at least one 

copy must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .• 

September 28. 1984. 

Public Hearing: Chicago. Illinois, 

Everett Dirkson Federal Building, 219 

South Dearborn Street. Room 1221 •. 

Chicago. IL 60504. 

Public Hearing, Atlanta. Georgia. A 

. public hearing will be held in Atlanta. 

Georgia. on October 10. 1984; requests to 

speak must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .. 

September 18. 1984: speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m .. September 20. 1984; 

ten copies of each speaker's statement 

are requested; however. at least one 

copy must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .. 

October 5. 1984. 

Public Hearing: Atlanta. Georgia. 

Richard Russell Federal Building. 75 

Spr:ing Street. SW. Room 1478. Atlanta. 

GA 30303. 

Public Hearing. Dallas. Texas. A 

public hearing will be held in Dallas. 

Texas on October 12. 1984; requests to 

speak must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .• 

September 18. 1984; speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m .• September 20. 1984: 

ten copies of each speaker's statement 

are requested: however. at least one 

copy must be received by the 

Department no later than 4 p.m .. 

October 5. 1984. 

Public Hearing: Dallas, Texas. Earl 

Cabel Federal Building, 1100 Commerce 

Street. Room 5C44. Dallas. TX 75242. 

Public Hearing. San Francisco. 

California. A public hearing will be held 

in San Francisco. California. on October 

15. 1984; requests to speak must be 

received by the Department no later 

than 4 p.m .• September 18, 1984; 

speakers will be notified by 4 p.m .• 

September 20. 1984; ten copies of each 

speaker's statement are requested; 

however. at least one copy must be 

received by the Department no later 

than 4 p.m .• October 5. 1984. 

Public Hearing: San Francisco. 

California. Tishman Building. 525 

Market Street, Room 2720. San 

Francisco. CA 94105. 

Public Hearing. Washington. D.C. A 

public hearing will be held in 

Washington. D.C .• on October 18.1984; 

requests to speak must be received by 

the Department no later than 4 p.m •• 

October 11. 1984; speakers will be 

notified by 4 p.m .• October 12, 1984; ten 

capies of each speaker's statement 

requested: however. at least one copy 

must be received by the Department no 

later than 4 p.m.. October 16. 1984. 

Public Hearing: Washington. D.C .• FOTrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 

Iridependence Avenue. SW. 

Wasbington. DC 20585. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure. Energy conservation. Household appliances. 

Authority: Sec. 323. Pub. 1.. 94-163. 89 Stat. 

917. as amended by Pub. 1.. 95-619. 92 Stat. 

3266 (42 U.S.c. 6293). 

In consideration of the foregoing. it is 

proposed to amend Part 430 of Chapter 

II of Title 10. Code of Federal 

Regulations. as set forth below. 

Issued in Washington, D.C., August 8. 1984. 

Pat Collins. 

Acting Assistant Secretary. Conservation and 

Renewable Energy. 

PART 43O-ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

Section 430.33 is amended by adding 

new paragraphs (a)(6), (cl, (d). (e), (I). 

(g). and (h) to read as follows: 

§ 430.33 Preemptlon of Slate regulatlons. 

(a) Kitchen Ranges and Ovens: 

• 

(6) Rhode Island State Building Code. 

revised as of July 1. 1983. Section 702. 

pertaining to gas kitchen ranges and 

ovens that are covered products. is 

exempt from preemption. 

(c) Refrigerators Rnd rp.friRerator· 

freezars: 

(1) Title 20. California Administrative 

Code. Section 1604(a). pertaining to 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption .. 

(2) New York State Energy Law. 

Section 16-110. pertaining to 

refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(d) Freezers: 

(1) Title 20, California Administrative 

Code. Section 1604(a), pertaining to 

freezers that are covered products. is 

. exempt from preemption. 

(2) New York State Energy Law, 

section 16-110. pertaining to freezers 

that are covered products. is ~xempt 

from preemption. 

(e) Water Heaters: 

(1) Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which 

prescribed Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction section 504.2, 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(2) The State regulation that enacted 

the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide 

Building Code. section P-1506.3.5. 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy 

Efficiency Code for Building' 

Construction. section 504.2(a). 903.2(a} 

and H903.2. pertaining to water heaters 

that are covered products. are exempt 

from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 

Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code 

for Building Construction. sections 

504.2(a) and 903.2(a), pertaining to water 

heaters that are covered products. are 

exempt from preemption. 

(4)16 Pa. Code. section 30.32(4) and 34 

Pa. Code. section 38.3 pertaining to 

water heaters that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemption. 

(5) Sections 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2 and 

604.1.1 of the 1983 Model Energy Code 

adopted by section 6-10-10. et seq., 

Code of Laws of South Carolina. 1976 

(1982. Cum. Supp.). pertaining to water 

heaters that are covered products, are 

exempt from preemption. 

(6) Section 504.2(aJ of the 1977 Code 

for Energy Conservation in New 

Building Construction adopted by 

section 5301 of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Unifol'IJl Building Code adopted by New 

Mexico's Construction Industries 

Committee on April 8. 1980, pertaining to 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32977 

water heaters that are coveM!d products 

is exempt from preemption. 

(7) The Slate regulation that enacted 

section 504.2(a) of the Georgia State 

Energy Code for Buildings, 1981 Edition. 

O.C.G.A. section 8-2-20. et seq., 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(8) Sections 504.2(a)(1) and (2) and 

604.1(a) of the Rhode Island State 

Building Code. prescribed July 1. 1983. 

by the State Building Code Standards 

Committee, pertaining to water heaters 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. . 

(9) New Hampshire State Regulation 

RSA 155:D. which adopts section 

504.2(8)(lJ and (2) of the New 

Hampshire Energy Code. pertaining to 

waler heaters that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(10) The Slate regulation filed by the 

Stare Bt!i!ding Code Commission on 

December 1::!. 1980 which enacted 

Article 17. Massachusetts State Building 

Code. section 2.14.8(a). pertaining to 

water heaters thaI are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(llJ Title 20. California Administrative 

Code. section 1604(e). and Part 2. Title 

24. California Administrative Code, 

section 2-5307 (a). pertaining to water 

heaters that are covered products, is 

exempt from preemption. 

(12J Oregon Laws 1979. Chaptp.f 197 

(June 4, 1979). Oregon Administrative 

Rules, section 814-21-135 pertaining to 

water heaters that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(13) New York Slate Energy Law. 

section 16-108 and Title 9. Official 

Compilation of New York Codes. Rules 

and Reg'Jlalions. section 7813.33. 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(14) The building codes of !he 

following localities in Missquri, 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (year adopted in 

parentheses) 

Arnold (1980) 

B .. Hwin (1981) 

Berkley (1981) 

Boonville (1978) 

Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) 

Brentwood (19801 

Brookfield (1979) 

Butler {19731 

Clayton (1981) 

Clinton (1975) 

Columbid (1975J 

Crestwood (1980) 

Creve Coear (1980J 

Dellwood (1980J 

Des Peres (1980J 

Ellisville (1979) 

Festus (1976) 

Florissant {1980J 

Fulton (1978) 

Glendale (1980) 

Hazelwood (19i5) 

Kennell (1979J 

Kirkwood {1981J 

Manchester (1980J 

Marshall (1980) 

Maryville (1971:lJ 

Mexico {1978} 

Ferguson (pending) 

Malden (unknown) 

Pacific (updating) 

Moberly (1980) 

Normandy (1978) 

Northwoods (1976) 

Olivette (1980) 

Overland (1981) 

Pagedale (1980) 

Perryville (1982) 

Pinelawn (1978) 

Richmond Heights (19801 

Rock Hill [1900) 

Rolla (1981) 

Springfield (1979) 

SI Clair [1971) 

SI. John (19i5) 

SI. Joseph (1980) 

St. Louis (1980) 

St. Louis County 

Unincorporated (19801 

Incorporated (1980) 

St. Peters (1982) 

Shrewsberry (1981) 

Sullivan (1980) 

Town and Country (1980) 

University City (198l) 

Webst.1r Groves (1980) 

Wellston (1980) 

Wentzville (updating) . 

Plattesburg (unknown) 

St. Charles (pending) 

(ii) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code (year adopted in 

parentheses) 

Aurora (1977) 

Eldon (,i980) 

Excel~ior Springs (1981) 

Grandview (1979) 

NQrth Kansas City (pendingJ 

Raytown (pending) 

(iii) American Society of Heating. 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAEJ Standard 90-75 

(year adopted in parentheses) 

Black Jal:k (1979) 

(Iv) Southern Building Code Congress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Code (year adopted in parentheses) 

Webb City (1981) • 

West Plains (1978) 

Iv} Other 

Lee's Summit (1981) 

(1S) The building codes of the 

follOWing localities in Texas. pertaining 

to water heaters that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption: 

(i) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code (edition adopted and 

adopting ordinance identified in 

paren theseR) 

Austin (1982. ;d .. Ord. 831110A) . 

Clebum (1982 Ed., Ord. 3-1984-10) 

Dimmitt (1982 Ed .. Ord. 405) 

Edgecliff (1982 Ed .. Ord. 183) 

Everman (1982 Ed .. Ord. 277) 

Ganado (1979) 

Garland (1982 Ed .. Ord. 2810) 

McKinney (1979 Ed., Ord. 1083) 

North Ric;hland Hills (1982 Ed .. Ord. 875) 

Pilot Point (1979 Ed., Ord. 254) 

University Park (198:! Ed .. Ord, 83--9J 

West Lake Hills (1982 Ed .. Ord. 56-1) 

(ii) Southern Building Code COllgress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Code (edition adopted and adopting 

ordinance identified in parentheses) 

Andrews (1978 Ed.) 

Balcon!!s Heights (1979 Ed .. Ord, ~1) 

-Brownfield (1971:l Ed., Ord. 1576) 

Brownwood (1979 Ed .. Ord. 8O-3GJ 

~CJute (1979 Ed., Ord. 82-17) 

College Stalion {l982 Ed .. Ord. 139tiJ 

'El Paso !1982 Ed .. Ord. 6340} 

Greenville (1982 Ed .. Ord. 3008) 

Hariingen [1982 Ed .. Ord. 84-23) 

Ingleside (198:! Ed .• Ord. 356) 

'jacksonville (1982 Ed .. Ord. 505) 

Jourdanton (1979 Ed .. Ord. 158) 

laGrange (1982 Ed.) 

Laredo (1979 Ed.) 

'Levelland (1982 Ed .• Ord. 647) 

Live Oak (1982 Ed .. Ord.419) 

Longview (1l:182 Ed .• Ord. 1575) 

Luling [1977 Ed.) 

Midland (1982 Ed .. Ord. 6293) 

.Midlothian {1976 Ed.} 

New Braunfels (1979 Ed .• Ord. 8125) 

Orange (1979 Ed .• Ord. 1980-46) 

Port Isabel (1982 Ed.: Ord. 408) 

Richardson (1979 Ed .. Ord. Z280A) 

'Rosenberg (1982 Ed .. Ord. 87-2) 

Round Rock (1982 Ed .• Ord. 2024) 

c1~usk {1980J 

San Benito (1982 Ed .. Ord. 981) 

'San Saba (1979J 

Schertz (1982 Ed .. Ord. 64-C-S] 

Snyder (1982 Ed .. Ord. 485) 

Sonora (1982 Ed .. Ord. 259) 

'Temple {1979 Ed .. Ord. 1295J 

Texarkana (1982 Ed .. Ord.294-82) 

Victoria [1979 Ed., Ord. 83-10) 

Wharton (1982 Ed., Ord. 1982-18) 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (edition adopted 

and adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Pasadena (1978 Ed .. Ord. 78-126J 

(161 Section E-S03.1 of the Building 

Officials and Code Administrations 

International CBOCA) Basic Building 

Code of 1981 as adopted with 

amendments by section 14A:3-4.4 of 

New Jersey Administrative Code. as 

readopted on July 11. 1983. pertaining to 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32978 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday, August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

water heaters that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(17) Administrative Rules and 

Regulations of the Illinois Department of 

Public Health Article I. Rule 1.12. and 

the building codes of the following 

localities in Illinois. pertaining to water 

heaters that are covered products, are 

exempt from preemption: . 

(iJ Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA). 

Basic Building Code (1978). Article 20: 

Barrington ViIla>'!e 

Buffalo Grove Village 

Garpentersville Village 

Crystal Lake City 

Fariview Heights City 

Fox River Grove Village 

Galesbury City 

Glen Carbon Village 

Glencoe Village 

Grayslake Village 

Gurnee Village 

Harvey City 

Hickory Hills Ciry 

Hun Village 

Jacksonville City 

laGrange Village 

Lake Barrington Village 

Lake in the Hills 

Machesney Village 

Madison City 

Montgomery Village 

Niles Village 

Northbrook Village 

O'Fallon City 

Orland Park Village 

Oswego Village 

Palos Heights City 

Parks City 

Peotone Village 

Richton Park Village 

River Forest Village 

Rochelle Village 

Shorewood Village 

South Barrington Village 

Sterling City 

Stickney City 

Sycamore City 

Western Springs Village 

(ii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1978-Modified): 

Hillside Village 

Ubertyville Village 

Marion City 

Springfield City 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1981). Article 25: 

Acton Cityu 

Bellwood Village 

Belnit City 

Belvider Village 

Bethalto Village 

Bloomington City 

Bolingbrook Village 

Carol Stream Village 

Country Club Hills City 

Countryside City 

Darien City 

Decatur City 

Deerfield Village 

DeKalb City 

Dixon City 

Downers Crove Village 

Effingham Village 

Elk Grove Village 

Evanston City 

Flora City 

Fox Lake Village 

Franklin Park Village 

Glen Carbon Village 

Golf Village 

Grayslake Village 

Hanover Park Village , '. 

Harvard Village 

Hazel Crest Village 

Hebron Village 

Hoffman Estates Village 

Hooperston City 

Kankakee City 

Lake County 

Matteson Village 

Montgomery Village 

Monticello City 

Murphysboro City 

North Aurora Village 

Oak Lawn Village 

Palos Park Village 

Pekin City 

Rock Falls City 

Roselle Village 

SchUler Village 

Skokie Village 

South Elgin Village 

South Roxana Village 

Spring Grove Village 

Vernon Hills Village 

Waukegan City 

West Chicago Village 

Westchester Village 

Westhaven Village 

Wheaton City 

Wheeling Village 

Wood Dale City 

Woodstock City 

(iv) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1981-Modified), 

Article 25: Code: 

Benton City 

Champaign City 

Morris City, 

Jerseyville City 

Woodbridge Village 

(v) International Conference of 

Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform 

Building Code: 

Canton City 

Carthage City 

Genesco City 

Mound City 

Pembroke Village 

Rock Island County 

(vi) American Society of Heating. 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 9(l-!75 

Carbondale City 

Springfield City 

(vii) National Building Code: 

Camp Point 

Carbondale City 

Glen Ellyn Village 

Grand Ridge Village 

MI. Sterling City 

North Riverside VHlage 

Riverdale Village 

(viii) Other 

Oakwood Hills Vulage 

(18) The State regulation which 

enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy 

Code. sections 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2. 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(19) Iowa Administrative Code. 

section 680-16.800(3) which enacted 

sections 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 of 

the 1983 Model Energy Code. pertaining 

to water heaters that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(20) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 

which enacted the 1981 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. 

pertaining to water healers ilia! are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(2l) Minnesota Slat 116}.19. Subd. 8., 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(22) Washington Energy Code. section 

42O(a), enacted by section 51-12, 

Washington Administrative Code, 

pertaining to water heaters that are 

covered produds. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(23) The local regulations of the City 

. and County of Honolulu. Hawaii County 

and Kauai County which enacted Article 

Eight. section 16-8.08(e} of the Uniform 

Building Code. pertaining to water 

heaters that are covered products, are 

exempt from preemption. 

(24) The State reguiation which 

enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. sections 504.2(a) and 

604.1(a), pertaining to water heaters that 

are covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(f) Room Air Conditioners: 

(ll Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which 

prescribed Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction. section 503.4. 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products, is exempt from 

preemption. 

(2) The State regulation that enacted 

the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide 

Building Code, section M-1303.2. 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy 

Efficiency Code for Building 

Construction. sections 503.4(e). 90l.(el. 

903.B(e) and H903.8. pertaining to room 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 3:!979 

air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

Additionally. the 1984 Florida Model 

Energy Efficiency Code for Building 

Cons'ruction. sections 503.4(e}. 903.8(e) 

and I002.0(bJ. pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption. 

(4] 34 Pa. Code. section 38.3. 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(5) Wisconsin Administrative Code:' 

lnd 22.12 and 63.20. pertaining to room 

air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt Jrom preemption. 

(6) Section 503.4(e) of the 19" Code 

fOf Energy Conservation in New 

Building Cor:.struction adopted by 

section 5301. of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopted by New 

Mexico's Construction Industries 

Committee on April 8. 1980. pertaining to 

room air conditioners that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(7) The State regulation that enacted 

section 503.4(eJ of the Georgia State 

Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. 

section 8-2-20. et seq .. pertaining to 

room air conditioners that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(8) Sections S03A(e) and 603.2(a} of 

the Rhode Island State Building Code. 

prescribed July 1. 1983. pertaining to 

room air conditioners that are covered 

products. by the State Building Code 

Standards Committee. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(9) New Hampshire State Regulation 

RSA 155:0. which adopts section 

S03A(e) of the New Hampshire Energy 

Code, pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products, 

is exempt from preemption. 

(10) The State regulation filed by the 

Slate Building Code Commission on 

May 1. 1979 which enacted 

Massachusetts State Building Code. 

section 2010.6.3. pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(11) Title 20. California Administrative 

Code. section 1804(b) and Part 2. Title 

24. California Administrative Code. 

section 5306(aJ pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemption. 

(12) State of Oregon. 1983 Edition. 

Structural Specialty Code and Fire and 

Life Safety Regulations. section 5304(b) 

2. pertaining to room air conditioners 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(13J New York State Energy Law. 

section 18-118. pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(14) The building codes of the 

following localities in Missouri, 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products. are exempt from 

preemption: 

(i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators Code International 

(BOCA) Basic Building Code (year 

adopted in parentheses) 

Arnold (1980) 

Ballwin (1981) 

Berkley (1978j 

Boonville (1981) 

Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) 

Brentwood (1980) 

Brookfield (1979) 

Butler (1983) 

Clayton {1981} 

ClinloR (1975) 

Columbia (1975) 

Crestwood (1980) 

Creve Coeur (1980) 

Dellwood (1980) 

Des Peres (1980) 

Ellsville (1978) 

Festus (1976) 

Florissant (1980) 

Fulton (1978) 

Glendale (19801 

Hazelwood (1975) 

KeMett (1979) 

Kirkwood (1981) 

Manchester (1980) 

Marshal! (1980) 

Maryville (1979) 

Ferguson [pending) 

Malden (unknown) 

Pacific (updating) 

Mexico (1978) 

Moberly (1980) 

Normandy [1978) 

Northwoods (1976) 

Olivette (1980) 

Overland (1981) 

Pagedale (1981) 

Perryville (1982) 

Pine Lawn (1978) 

Richmond Heights (1980) 

Rockhill (1980J 

Rolla (1980) 

Springfield (1979) 

SI. Clair (1971) 

SI. John (1975) 

SI. Joseph (1980) 

SI. Louis (1980) 

Unincorporated (1980) 

Incorporated (1980) 

SI. Peters (1982) 

Shrewsberry (1981) 

Sulllv8n (1980) 

Town and Country (1980) 

University City (1981) 

Webster Grove (1980) 

Wellston (1980) 

Plattesburg (unknown) 

St. Chlarles (pending) 

Wentzville (updating) 

(ii) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code (year adopted in 

parentheses) 

Aurora (1977) 

Eldon (1980) 

Excelsior Springs (1981) 

Grandview (1979) 

North Kansas City (pendingl 

RilylOWn (pending) 

[iii) American Society oC Healing. 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 

(year adopted in parentheses) 

Black lack (1979) 

(iv) Southern Building Code Congrpss 

International Code (SaCC) Standard 

Building Code (year adopted in 

parentheses) 

Webb City (1961) 

West Plains (1978) 

(v) Other 

Lae's Summit (1981) 

(15) The building codes of the 

roHowing localities Texas. pertaining to 

room air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption: 

(i) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code (edition adopted and 

adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Austin (1982 Ed .. Ord. 831110A) 

Cleburen [1982 Ed .. Ord. 3-1984-10) 

'Dimmitt (1982 Ed .. Ord. 405) . 

Edgl'cliff (1982 Ed~ Ord. l63) 

-Everman (1982 Ed., Ord. 277) 

Ganado (1979) 

-Garland [1982 Ed .• Ord. 2810} 

'McKinney (1979 Ed .. Ord. 1083) 

'North Richland Hills (1982 Ed .. Ord. 875) 

Pilot Point (1979 Ed .. Ord. 254) 

'University Pltrk (1982 Ed .• Ord. 63-9) 

West Lak~ Hills (1982 Ed .. Ord. 5&-1) 

(ii) Southern Building Code Congress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Code (edition adopted and adopting 

ordinance identified in parentheses) 

Andrews (1978 Ed.) 

Balcones Heights (1979 Ed .. Ord. 4-81.) 

--arownne!d (1979 Ed .• Ord. 1576) 

._Brol'."Tlwood (1979 Ed .. Ord. 80-36) 

Clute (1979 Ed .. Ord. 62-17) 

College Station (1982 Ed .• Ord. 1398) 

El Paso (1982 Ed~ Ord. 6340) 

. Greenville (1982 Ed .. Ord. 30(8) 

Harlingen (1982 Ed .. Ord. 84-23) 

Ingleside (1982 Ed .. Ord. 356) 

'Jacksonville (1982 Ed .. Ord. 505) 

Jourdanton (1979 Ed .. Ord. 158) 

LaGrange (1982 Ed.) 

. Laredo (1979 Ed.) 

Levelland (1982 Ed .. Ord. 647) 

Live Oak (1982 Ed .. Ord. 419) 

'Longview (1982 Ed .• Ord. 1576) 

Luiing (1977 Ed.) 

Midland (1982 Ed .. Ord. 6.."93) 

Midlothian (1976 Ed.) 

New Braunfels (1979 Ed .. Ord. 8125) 

Orange (1979 Ed .. Ord. 1980-46) 

Port Isabel (1982 Ed .. Ord. 408) 

Richardson (1979 Ed .• Ord. 2280A) 

Rosenberg (1982 Ed .. Ord. 67-2) 

Round Rock (1982 Ed .. Ord. 2024) 

Rusk (1980) 

San Benito (1982 Ed .• Ord. 9811 

San Saba (1979) . 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32980 Federal Register I Vol. 49, No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

Schertz (1982 Ed., Ord. 84-C-8) 

Snyder (1982 Ed .. Ord. 485) 

Sonora (1982 Ed .. Ord.259) 

Temole (1979 Ed .. Ord. 1295) 

Texarkana (1982 Ed .. art!. 294-aZ) 

Victoria (1979 Ed.. Ord. 83-10) 

Wharton (1982 Ed .. Ord. 1982-18) 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (edition adopted 

and adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Pasadena (1978 Ed .. Ord. 78-126) 

(16( Section E-402.1.1 ot the Buildh'g 

Officials and Code Administrators 

International (BOCA) Basic Building 

Code of 1961 as adopted with 

amendments by section 14:3-4.4. New 

Jersey Administrative Code, as 

readopted on July 11. 1983. pertaining to 

room air conditioners that are covered 

products, is exempt from preemption. 

(17) Administrative Rules and 

Regulations of the Illinois Department of 

Public Health, Article I. Rule 1.1.2, and 

the building codes of the following 

localities in Illinois, pertaining to room 

air conditioners that are covered 

products, are exempt from preemption: 

(iJ Buildings Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1978), Article 20 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1978), 

Article 3: 

Carpentersville Village Crystal Lake City 

Fairview Heights City Glen Carbon Vnlage Gurnee Village Machesney Village ~adison City River Forest Village 

Rochelle Village 

Shorewood Village South Barrington Village 

(ii) Building Officials and Code -

Administrators Intemalional (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (19Bl), Article 25 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1981). 

Article 13: 

Bellwood Village 

Belvidere Village Bloomington City 

Country Club Hills City 

DeKalb City Effingham Village 

Elk Grova Village 

Evanston City Flora City Hazel Crest Village Murphysboro City Waukegan City 

Westhaven Village 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (l961-Modifled). 

Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code 

(1981-Modifiedj. Article 13: 

Woodbridge Village 

(iv) American SOCiety of Heating. 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 

Carbondale City 

(v) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

BUilding Code 

Clinton City 

Carthage City Mound City 

Mt. Sterling City 

Pembroke Village 

(18) The State regulation which 

enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy 

Code. section 503.4.5, pertaining to room 

air conditioners that are covered 

products, is exempt from preemption. 

(19) Iowa Administrative Code, 

Section 680-16.800(3) which enacted 

sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 and Tables 

No. 5-6 and 6-6 of the 1983 Model 

Energy Code, pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption. 

(20) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 

which enacted the 1961 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines, 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(21) Minnesota Slat. 116j.1S. Sub. B. 

and 13. pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption. 

(22) Washington Energy Code, 

sections 411(e) and 602(aJ. enacted by 

section 51-12. Washington 

Administrative Code, pertaining to foom 

air conditioners that are covered 

products, are exempt from preemption. 

(23) The local regulations of the City 

and County of Honolulu and Hawaii, 

Hawaii County. and Kauai, County 

which enacted Article Eight, section 16-

8.04(b)(1) of the Uniform Building Code. 

pertaining to room air conditioners that 

are covered products, are exempt from 

preemption. 

(24) The State regulation which 

enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. sections 503.4[e) and 

603.2(a), pertaining to room air 

conditioners that are covered products, 

are exempt from preemption. 

(g) Central Air Conditioners: 

(1) Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which 

prescribed Rules and Regulations for 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction. section 503.4. 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(2) The State regulation that enacted 

the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide 

Building Code, section M-1303.2. 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered product!!. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy 

Code for Building Construction. sections 

503.4(e). 901.1(e), 903.8(e) and H903.8. 

pertaining to central Bir conditioners 

that are covered products, Bre exempt 

from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 

Florida Model Energy EffiCiency Code 

for Building Construction. sections 

503.4(e).903.B(e) and 1oo2.0Ib), 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products. are exempt 

from preemption. 

(4) 34 Pa. Code. section 38.3, 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products, is exempt 

from preemption. 

(5) Wisconsin Administrative Code: 

lnd 22.12 and 63.20, pertaining to central 

air conditioners that are covered 

products, are exempt from preemption. 

(6) Sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 of the 

1983 Model Energy Code adopted by 

section 6-10-10, et. seq .• Code of Laws 

of South Carolina, 1976 (1982. Cum. 

Supp.), pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemption. 

(7) Section 503.4(e) of the 1977 Code 

for Energy Conservation in New 

Building construction adopted by 

section 5301 of Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopted by New 

Mexico's Construction Industries 

Committee on April 8, 1980. pertaining to 

central air conditioners that are covered 

products, is exempt from preemption. 

(B) The Stale regulation that enacted 

section 503.4(e) of the Georgia State 

Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. 

O.C.G.A.. section 8-2-20, et seq., 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(9) Sections 503.4(e) and 603.2(aj'of 

the Rhode Island State Energy Code, 

prescribed July 1. 1983, by the State 

Building Code Standards Committee. 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products, are exempt 

from preemption. 

(1) New Hampshire State Reguiation 

RSA 155:0. which adoptes section 

503.4(e) of the New Hampshire Energy 

Code, pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products, 

is exempt from preemption. 

(11) The state regulation filed by the 

State BUilding Code Commission on 

May 1. 1979 which enacted 

Massachusetts Slate Building Code. 

section 2010.6.3. pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products, 

is exempt from preemption. 

(12) Title 20. California Administrative 

Code. section 1604(c). and Part 2, Title 

24 California Administrative Code. 

/ 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Federal Register I Vol. '-49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17, 1984 I Proposed Rules 32981 

section 2-5306(a} pertaining to central 

air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(13) State of Oregon. 1983 Edition 

Structural Specialty Code and Fire and 

Life Safety Regulations. section 

5304(b)(2), pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products, 

is exempt from preemption. 

(141 New York State Energy Law, 

section 16-118, including provisions in 

that section applicable after September 

1. 1984. pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are coverd products. is 

exempt from preemption. 

(15) The building codes of the 

following localities in Missouri. 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products, are exempt 

from preemption: 

(i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (year adopted in 

paren theses) 

Arnold (1980) 

Ballwin (1981) 

Berkley (1978J 

Boonvilre (1978) 

Breckenridge Hill Village (1979l 

Brentwood (1980) 

Brookfield (1979) 

Butler (1973) 

Butler (1973) . Clayton (1975) 

Clinton {1975} 

Columbia (1975) 

Crestwood (1980) 

Creve Coeur (1980) 

Dellwood (1980J 

Des Peres (1980) 

Ellisville (1978J 

Festus (1976) 

Florissant (1980) 

Fulton (1978) 

Glendale (1980) 

Hazelwood (1975) 

Kennett (1979) 

Incorporated (1980J 

St. Peters (1982J 

Shrewsberry (1981) 

Sullivan (1980) 

Town and Country (1980} 

University City (1981) 

Webster Groves (1980) 

Wellston (1980J 

Plattesburg (unknown) 

SI. Charles) (pending) 

Wentzville (updating) 

(ii) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code (year adopted in 

parenthesese) 

Aurora (1m) 

Eldon (1980) 

Excelsior Springs (1981) 

Grandview (1979J 

North Kansas City (pendingJ 

Raytown (pending) 

(iii) American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 

(year adopted in parentheses) 

Black Jack (1979) 

(iv] Southern Building Code Congress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Code (year adopted in parentbeses.) 

Webb City (1981) 

West Plains (1978) 

(v) Other 

Lee's Summit (1981) 

(16) The building codes of the 

following localities in Texas, pertaining 

to central air conditioners that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption: 

(i) International Conference of 

Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform 

Building Code (edition adopted and 

adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Kirkwood Austin (1982 Ed .• Ord. 831110A) (1981) 

Manchester (1980) 

Marshall (1980) 

Maryville (1979) 

Mexico (1978) 

Ferguson (updating) 

_ . Cleburne (1982 Ed.. Ord. 3-1984-10) 

Dimmit (1982 Ed .. Ord. 405) 

Edgecliff (1982 Ed.. Ord. 163) 

Everman (1982 Ed., Ord. 277J 

Ganado (1979) 

Malden {unknown} 

Pacific (updating) 

Moberly (1980) 

Normandy (1978) 

Northwoods (1976) 

Olivette (1980) 

Overland (1981J 

Pagedale (1980) 

Perryville (1982) 

Pine Lawn (1978J 

Richmond Heights (1980) 

Rock Hill (1980) 

Rolla (1981) 

Springfield (1979) 

51. Clair (1971) 

Sl. John (1975) 

St. Joseph (1980) 

St. Louis (1980) 

St. Louis County 

Unincorporated (1980) 

Garland (1982 Ed.. Ord. 2810) 

McKinney (1979 Ed .. Ord. 1(83) 

North Richland Hills {l982 Ed .• Ord. 875} 

Pilot Point (1979 Ed .. Ord. 254) 

University Park (1982 Ed .• Ord. 83-9) 

West Lake Hills (1982 Ed .. Ord. 5tH) 

(Ii) Southern Building Code Congress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Code (edition adopted and adopting 

ordinance identified in parenthesis] 

Andrews (1978 Eli) 

Belcones Height. (1979 Ed.. Ord. 4-81) 

Brownfield (1979 Ed •• Ord. 1576) 

Brownwood (1979. Ed •• Ord. 8O-36J 

Clute (1979 Ed .. Ord. 82-17) 

College Station (1982 Ed .. Ord. 1398) 

E1 Paso (1982 Ed~ Ord. 6340) 

Greenville (1982 Ed .• Ord. 3008) 

Harlingen (1982 Eli. Ord. &4-23) 

Ingleside (1982 Ed .. Ord. 356) 

Jacksonville (1982 Ed .. Ord. 505) 

Jourdanton (1979 Ed .• Ord. t58) 

laGrange (1982 Ed.) 

Laredo (1979 Ed.) 

Levelland {1982 Ed .• Ort. 647} 

Live Oak (1982 Ed .• Ord. 419) 

Longview (1982 Ed .• Ord. 1576) 

Luling (1m Ed.) 

Midland (1982 Ed .. Ord. 6293) 

Midlothian (1976 Ed.) 

New Braunfels (1979 Ed .. Ord. 8125J 

Orange (1979 Ed .• Ord. 1960-46) 

Port Isabel (1982 Ed .. Ord. 408) 

Richardson {1979 Ed .• Ord. 2280AJ 

Rosenberg (1982 Ed .• Ord. 67-2) 

Round Rock (1982 Ed .• Ord. 2(24) 

Rusk [1980) 

San Benito (1982 Ed .• Ord. 981) 

San Saba (1979) 

Schenz (1982 Ed .• Ord. 84-G-8) 

Snyder (1982 Ed .• Ord. 485) 

Sonora (1982 Ed .• Ord. 259) 

Temple (1982 Ed .• Ord. 1295) 

Texarkana (1982 Ed .. Ord. 294-82) 

Victoria (1979 Ed .• Ord. 83-10) 

Wharton (1982 Eli. Ord. 1982-18) 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators Insternational (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (edition adopted 

and adopting ordinance identified in 

parentbeses) 

Pasadena (1978 Ed., Ord. 78-126) 

(17) Section £.-402.1.1 of the Building 

Officials and Code Administrators . 

International (BOCA) Basic Building 

Code of 1981 a8 adopted with 

amendments by section 14:3-4.4, New 

Jersey Administrative Code. as 

readopted on July 11. 1983. and tbe 

Tariff of the New Jersey Board of Public 

Utilities in Docket No. 8111-1009, 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products. are exempt. 

from preemption. 

(18) Administrative Rules and 

Regulations of tbe Illinois Department of 

Public Health. Article I. Rule 1.12. and 

the building codes of the following 

localities in Illinois, pertaining to central 

air conditioners that are covered' 

products, are exempt from preemption: 

[i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrator International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1978): Article ZO 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1978). 

Article 3 

Barrington Village 

Buffalo Grove Village 

Carpentersville Village 

Crystal Lake City 

Fairview Heights City 

Fox River Grove Village 

Galesburg City 

Glen Carbon Village 

Clencoe Village 

Grayslake Village 

Gurnee Village 

Harvey City 

Hickory Hills City 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32982 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

Hun Village 

Jacksonville City 

laGrange Village 

Lake Barrington Village 

Lake Holiday Property Owners Assor.iation. 

Inc. 

Lake in the Hills 

Machesney Village 

Madison Cily 

Niles Village 

Northbrook Village 

O'Fallon City 

Orland Park Village 

Oswego Village 

Palos Heights City 

Park City City 

Peotone Village 

Richton Park Village 

River Forest Village 

Rochelle Village 

Shorewood Village 

South Barrington Village 

Sterling City 

Stickney Village 

Sycamore City 

Western Springs Village 

(ii) Building Officials and t:ode 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1978-Modified). 

Article 20 and Basic Mechanical Code 

(1978-Modified). Article 3 

Hillside Village 

Ubertyville Village 

Marion City 

Springfield City. 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA). 

Basic Building Code (1981). Article 25 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1981). 

Article 13 

Acton City . Bellwood Village 

Belnit City 

Belvidere Village 

Bethalto Village 

Bloomington City 

Bolingbrook Village 

Carol Stream Village 

Country Club Hills City 

Countryside City 

Darien City 

Decatur City 

Deerfield Village 

DeKalbCity 

Dixon City 

Downers Grove Village 

Effingham Village 

Elk Grove Village 

Evanston City 

Flora City 

Fox Lake Village 

Franklin Park Village 

Glen Carbon Village 

Golf Village 

Graysliike Village 

Hanover Park Village 

Harvard Village 

Hazel Crest Village 

Hebron Village 

Hoffman Estates Village 

Hoopeston City 

Kankakee City 

Lake County 

Matteson Village 

Montgomery Village 

Monticello City 

Murphysboro City 

North Aurora Village 

Oak Lawn Village 

Palos Park Village 

Pekin City 

Rock Falls ClIy 

Roselle Village 

Schiller Park Village 

Skokie Village 

South Elgin Village 

South Roxana Village 

Spring Grove Village 

Vernon Hills Village 

Waukegan City 

West Chicago City 

Westchester Village 

Westhaven Village 

Wheaton City 

Wheeling Village 

WGod Dale City 

Woodatock City 

'} '. 

(iv) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1981-Modified). 

Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code 

(1981-Modified). Article 13 

Benton City 

Champaign City 

Morris City 

Jerseyville City - Woodbridge Village 

(v) American SOCiety of Heating. 

Refrigerating and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 

Carbondale City 

Springfield City 

(vi) International Conference of 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform 

Building Code 

Canton City 

Carthage City 

Genesco City 

Mound City 

Pembroke Village 

Rock Island County 

(vii) National Building Code 

Carbondale City 

Camp Point 

Glen Ellyn Village 

Grand Ridge Village 

Mt. Sterling City 

North Riverside Village 

Riverdale Village 

(viii) Other 

Oakwood Hills Village 

(19) The State regulation which 

enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy 

Code. section 503.4.5. pertaining to 

central air conditioners that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(20) Iowa Administrative Code. 

section 680-16.800(3). which enacted 

sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 and Tables 

No. 5-6 and 6-6 of the 1983 Model 

Energy Code. pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemption. 

(21) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 

which enacted the 1981 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. 

pertaining to central air conditioners 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(22) Minnesota Stat. 116J.19 Subd. 8. 

pertaining to central air conditione~ 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(23) Washington Energy Code. 

sections 411(e) and 602(a). enacted by 

section 51-12. Washington 

Administrative Code. pertaining to 

central air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(24) The Orders in Kansas 

Corporation Commission Docket No. 

110.776-U. pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

is exempt from preemption. 

(25) The local regulations of the City 

and County of Honolulu. Hawaii 

County. and Kauai County which adopt 

Article Eight. section 16-8.04(b)(5) of the 

Uniform Building Code. pertaining to 

central air conditioners that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(26) The State regulation which 

enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. sections 503.4(e) and 

603.2(a). pertaining to central air 

conditioners that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemption. 

(h) Furnaces: 

(1) Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which 

prescribed Rules and Regulations fox: 

Energy Efficiency Standards for New 

Building Construction. section 503.4. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. is eXEWnpt from preemption. 

(2) The State reg'llation that enacted 

the 1981 Virginia Uniform. Statewide 

Building Code. section M-1303.6. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy 

Efficiency Code for Building . 

Construction. sections 503.4(c). 903.8(c). 

and H903.8. pertaining to furnaces that 

are covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. Additionally. the 1984 

Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code 

for Building Construction. sections 

503.4(eJ and 903.8(c). pertaining to 

furnaces that are covered products. are 

exempt from preemption. 

(4) 16 Pa. Code. section 30.32(6). 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(5) Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) 

and Wisconsin Administrative Code: 

lnd Z2.12. 22.13. and 63.20 and 

Administrath'e Code PSC 136.04. 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

Jo'ederal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 32983 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(6) Sections 503.4.3 and 603.2.2 of the 

Model Energy Code adopted by section 

6-10-10.. eL seq .• Code of Laws of South 

Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.). 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(1) Section 503.4(c) of the 1917 Code 

Cor Energy Conservation in New 

Building Construction adopted by 

section 5301 of· Chapter 53 of the 1979 

Uniform Building Code adopted by New 

Mexico's Construction Industries 

Committee on April 8. 1980. pertaining to 

furnaces that are covered products. is 

exempt from preemption. 

(8) The State regulation that enacted 

section 503.4(c) of the Georgia State 

Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. 

a.c.G.A. Sec. 8-2-20. et seq .. pertaining 

to furnaces that are covered products. is 

exempt from preemption. 

(9) Sections 503.4(c} and 603.2(b) of 

the Rhode Island State Building Code. 

prescribed July 1. 1983. by the State 

Building Code Standards Committee. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(10) New Hampshire State Regulation 

RSA 155:D. which adopts section 

503.4(c} of the New Hampshire Energy 

Code pertaining to furnaces that are 

covered products, is exempt from 

preemption. 

(11) The State regulation filed by the 

State Building Code Commission on 

May 1. 1979 which enacted 

Massachusetts State Building Code. 

section 2010.6.1. pertaining to furnaces 

that are covered. products, is exempt 

from preemption. 

(12) Title 20. California Administrative 

Code section 1604(d). and 1605; Part 2, 

Title 24, California Administrative Code, 

sections 2-5306(c} and 2-5337; and 

California Public Resources Code. 

sections 25960 and 25964. pertaining to 

furnaces that are covered products. are 

exempt from preemption. 

(13) State of Oregon. 1983 Edition. 

Structural Specialty Code and Fire and 

Life Safety Regulations. section 5304(b} 

5. pertaining to furnaces that are 

covered products. is exempt from 

preemption. 

(14) New York State Energy Law. 

section 16-116. and Title 9. Official 

Compilation of New York Codes. Rules 

and Reguiati9ns. section 7813..23. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(15) The buiJding codes of the 

following localities in Missouri •. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption: 

(i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (year adopted in 

parentheses) 

Arnold {19801 

Ballwin (1981) 

Berkley (1978} 

BoonviUe {1978l 

Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) 

Brentwood (1980) 

Brookfield (1979) . 

Butler (1973) 

Clayton (1981J 

Clinton (1975) 

Columbia (1975) 

Crestwood (1980) 

Creve Coeur (19801 

Dellwood (1980) 

Des Peres (1980) 

Ellisville (1978) 

Festus (1980) 

Floriaaanl (1980J 

Fulton {1978} 

Glendale (1980) 

Hazelwood (1975) 

Kennett (1981) 

Kirkwood (1981) 

Manchester (1980) 

Marshall (1980) 

Maryville (1979) 

Mexico (1978} 

Ferguson (pending) 

Malden (unknown) 

Pacific (updating) 

Moberly (1980) 

Normandy {1978} 

Northwoods (1976) 

Olivette [1980) 

Overland (1981) 

Pagedale (1980) 

Perryville (198%) 

Pine Lawn (1978) 

Richmond Heighta (198G) 

Rock Hill (1980) 

Rolla (19811 

Springfield (1979) 

SL Clair (1971) 

St. John (1975) 

St. Joseph (1980) 

St. Louis (1980) 

SL Louis County 

Unicorporated (1980) 

Incorporated (1980) 

SL Patera (198%) 

Shrewsberry (I98I) 

Sullivan (1980) 

Town and Country (1980) 

University City (1981J 

Webster Groves (1980) 

Wellston (1980) 

Plattesburs (unknown) 

Sl. Charles (pending) 

Wentzville (updating) 

(ii] International Conference of 

Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform 

Building Code (year adopted In 

parentheses) 

Aurora (1977) 

Eldon (1980) 

Excelsior Springs (1981) 

Grandview (1979) 

North Kanll88 City (pending) 

Raytown (pending) 

(iii) American Society of Heating. 

ReCrigeraq and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 

(year adopted in parentheses) 

Black Jack (1979) 

(iv) Southern Building Code Congress 

International (SBCC) Standard Building 

Cede (year adopted in parentheses) 

Webb City (1981) 

West Plaine (l978) 

(v) Other 

Lee', Summit (1981) 

(16) 'nIe building codes of the 

following localities in Texas. pertaining 

to furnaces that are covered products. 

are exempt from preemptioD. 

(i) International Conference of 

Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform 

Building Code (edition adopted and 

adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Austin {1982 Ed.. Ord. 831110A} 

Cleburne (198% Ed~ Ord. 3-1984-10] 

Dimmitt (198% Ed.. Ord. 405) 

Edgecliff (1982 Ed .. Ord. 163) 

Evermen (198% Ed.. Orl!. 277) 

Ganado (1979) 

Garland (198% Ed .. Ord. 2810) 

McKinney [1979 Ed.. Ord. 1(83) 

North Richland HIlla [1982 Ed.. Ord. 815) 

Pilot Point {1979 Ed.. Ord. 2M} 

University Park (1982 Ed.. Ord. 83-9) 

West Lake Hills [198% Ed .• Ord. 56-1} 

"eU) Southern BuUding Code Cong:res8 

International (saCC) Standard Building: 

Code (year adopted in parentheses I 

A.ndrewa (1978 EeL) 

Balcones Heighq (1979 Ed.. Ord. 4-31) 

Brownfield (1979 EeL. Ord. 1576) 

Brownwood {1979 EeL. Ord. 8Q-,'38J 

Clute (1976 Ed.. Ord. 82-17] 

College Station (198% Ed" Ord. 1398) 

El Paso (1982 EeL. Ord. 63401 

Greenville (198% Ed .. Ord. 3008) 

Harlingen (1982 EeL. Ord. 84-23) 

Insleside (1982 Ed.. Ord. 358) 

Jacksonville (1982 Ed .• Ord. SOS) 

Jourdanton (1979 Ed .• Ord. 158) 

LeGrange {1982 Ed.} 

Laredo {1979 Ed.} 

Levelland {198% Ed.. Ord. 647} 

Live Oak (1982 Ed.. Ord. 419) 

Longview (1982 Ed« Ord. 1576) 

Luling (1917 EeL) 

Midland (198% Ed .. Ord. 6293) 

Midlothian (1976 EeL) 

New Braunfels (1979 Ed .• Ord' 8125) 

Orange (1979 Ed •• Ord. 1980-46) 

Port Isabel (1982 Ed .. Ord. 408) 

Richardson (1979 Ed.. Ord. 2280A) 

Rosenberg (1982 Ed .. Ord. 67-2) 

Round Rock (198% Ed .. Ord. 2024) 

Rusk (1980) 

San Benito (1982 Ed •• Ord. 981) 

San Saba (1979) 

Schertz (1982 Ed.. Ord. 64-C-8) 

Snyder (1982 Ed .. Ord. 485) 

Sonora (1982 EeL. Ord..Z59) 

Temple (1979 Ed .• Ord.129S) 

Texarkana (1982 EeL. Ord. 294-821 

Victoria (1979 Ed .. Ord. 83-10) 

Wharton (198% Ed.. Ord. 1982-18) 
CE-CP-SPRM-AR006-STD-0020 COMMENT 02

32984 Federal Register I Vol. 49. No. 161 I Friday. August 17. 1984 I Proposed Rules 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (edition adopted 

and adopting ordinance identified in 

parentheses) 

Pasadena (1978 Ed •• Ord. 78-125) 

(17) Section E-402.1.5 of the Building 

Officials and Code Administrators 

International Basic Code of 1981 as 

adopted with amendments by section 

14:3-4.4. New Jersey Administrative 

Co~e. as readopted on July 11. 1983. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. is exempt from premption. 

(18) Administrative Rules and 

Regulations of the Illinois Department of 

Public Health. Article 1. Rule 1.12. and 

the building codes of the following 

localities in Illinois. pertaining to 

furnaces that are covered products. are 

exempt from preemption: 

(i) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1978). Article 20 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1978). 

Article 3 

Barrington Village 

Buffalo Grove Village 

Carpentersville Village 

Crystal Lake City 

Fairview Heights Gity 

Fox River Grove Village 

Galesburg City 

Glen Carbon Village 

Glencoe Village 

Gra~'slake Village 

Gurnee Village 

Harvey City 

Hickory Hills City 

Hun Village 

Jacksonville City 

LaC;:;rone Village 

Lake Barrington Village 

Lake Holiday Property Owners Association. 

Inc. 

Lake in the Hills 

Machesney Village 

Madison City 

Montgomery Village 

Niles Village 

Northbrook Village 

O'Falion City 

Orland Park Village 

Oswego Village 

Palos Heights City 

Park City City 

Peotone Village 

Richton Park Village 

River Forest Village 

Rochelle Village 

Shorewood Village 

South Barrington Village 

'Sterling City 

Stickney Village 

Sycamore City 

Western Springs Village 

(ii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA] 

Basic Building Code (1978-Modified). 

Article 20 and Basic Mechanical Code 

(1978-Modified). Article 3 

Hillside Village 

Libertyville Village 

Marion City 

Springfield City 

(iii) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1981). Article 25 

and Basic Mechanical Code (1981). 

Article 13 

Acton City 

Bellwood Village 

Belnit City 

Belvidere Village 

Bethalto Village 

Bloomington City 

Bolingbrook Village 

Carol Stream Village 

County Club Hilla City 

Countryside City 

Darien City 

Decatur City 

Deerfield Village 

DeKalb City 

Dixon City 

Downers Grove Village 

Elk Grove Village 

Evanston City 

Fox Lake Village 

Franklin Park Village 

Glen Carbon Village 

Golf Village 

Grayslake Village 

Hanover Park Village 

Harvard Village 

Hazel Crest Village 

Hebron Village 

Hoffman Estates Village 

Hoopeston City 

Kankakee City 

Lake County 

Matteson Village 

Montgomery Village 

Monticello City 

Murphysboro City 

North Aurora Village 

Oak Lawn Village 

Pa los Park Village 

Pekin City 

Rock Falls City 

Roselle Village 

Schiller Park Village 

Skokie Village 

South Elgin Village 

South Roxana Village 

Spring Grove Village 

Vernon Hills Village 

Waukegan City 

West Chicago City 

Westchester Village 

Westhorn Village 

Wheaton City 

Wheeling Village 

Wooddale City 

Woodstock City 

(iv) Building Officials and Code 

Administrators International (BOCA) 

Basic Building Code (1981.:.-Modified). 

Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code 

(1981-Modified). Article 13 

Benton City 

Champaign City 

Jerseyville City 

Morris City 

Woodbridge Village 

(v) American Society of Heating. 

Refrigflrllting. and Air Conditioning 

Engineers (ASI fRAE) Standard 90-75 

Carbondale City 

Springfield.City 

(viI International Conference on 

Building Officials (ICBO) Uniforn 

Building Code (1977) 

Canton City 

Carthage City 

Genesco City 

Mound City 

Pembroke Village 

Rock Island County 

(vii) National Building Code 

Carbondale City 

Camp Pl;)int 

Glen Ellyn Village 

Grand Ridge Village 

Mt. Sterling City 

North Riverside Village 

Riverdale Village 

(viii) Other 

Oakville Hills Village 

(19) The State regulation that enacted 

the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code. 

section 503.4.3. pertaining to furnaces 

that are covered products. is exempt 

from preemption. 

(20) Iowa Administrative Code. 

section 680-16.800(3) which enacted 

sections 503.4.3 and 603..2.2 and Tables 

No. 5-5 and 6-4 of the 1983 Model 

Energy Code. pertaining to furnaces that 

are coveted products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

(21) West Virginia Code. section 5-4-2 

which enacted the 1961 West Virginia 

Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. 

pertaining tt;! furnaces that are covered 

products. is exempt from preemption. 

(22) Minnesota Stat. 116}.19. Subd. 8. 

and Minnesota Stat. 1165.19. Subd. 14. 

pertaining to furnaces that are covered 

products. are exempt from preemption. 

(23) Washington Energy Code. 

sections 411(c) and 602(a). enacted by 

section 51-12. Washington 

Administrative Code. pertaining to 

furnaces that are covered products. are 

exempt from preemption. 

(24) The local regulations of the City 

and County of Honolulu. Hawaii 

County. and Kauai County which 

enacted Article Eight. section 16-

8.04(b)5 of the Uniform Building Code. 

and Chapter 196-5 of the Hawaii 

Revised Statutes. pertaining to furnaces 

that are covered products. are exempt 

from preemption. 

. (Z5jThe State regulation that enacted 

the Tennessee Code for Energy 

Conservation in New Building 

Construction. sections 503.4(c) and 

603.Z(b). pertaining to furnaces that are 

covered products. are exempt from 

preemption. 

lFll Doc. 84-Z1864 Filed 8-1&-34, 8; .. 5 .ml 

IJIWNG CODE !l45IHH-I,t